Disney Plus – Price increase.

I do feel like the new original content on Disney+ substantially lags all other streaming services. Yes, subscribers get access to almost all of the Disney movie and lots of the classic TV vault along with some Lucasfilm and 20th Century Fox material, but when compared to Netflix, Paramount+, and even Peacock, it's woeful, yet Disney wants to charge a premium.

As far as I'm concerned, if Disney is going to operate Hulu, that should be the primary streaming service they offer with Disney+ and ESPN+ provided as optional add-ons. Hulu could offer selected Disney+ and ESPN+ content (mostly original series and live sports typically offered on broadcast networks) to encourage Hulu subscribers to buy the whole bundle, but in my eyes Disney+ really isn't a value by itself, and certainly not at over $100/year - you can buy BluRays of every major release from Disney for @$100/year, which allows you to watch it whenever and wherever you want.

I think Disney is grasping right now along with the rest of the streaming services hoping to make ends meet on this new model of entertainment that ultimately isn't profitable. There just isn't value for the service at the price they want to charge given the current amount of content. Hulu has value because it allows you to watch original TV series from multiple networks for those without a cable subscription. ESPN obviously has value because of it exclusive live sports rights. Disney+ has a handful of original series and a bunch of old content, which just isn't enough to justify.

Russell - What you described is the new "model" that Max (formerly HBO Max) is going to when it comes to their sports offerings. Max will still be their streaming service, but you'll be able to buy Bleacher Report Sports Add-on tier. WB Discovery is offering it for free for a limited time, but it will soon be an add on tier for a Max subscription. My understanding is that you'll get all of the live sports from the WB Discovery holdings as a streaming option through this "tier." (One more dagger in the cable bundle's back.)

As for Disney plus, my kids are 10 and 8, and outside of a few truly exclusive offerings (Star Wars shows and MCU shows), there is very little value, and very little they watch. I do wonder, if the WB Discovery model is successful, if Disney will eventually license these former Disney+ exclusives. WB Discovery is licensing many of the former HBO and HBO Max exclusives to their linear networks like TruTV and TBS.

@MLB - That assumes Max/Turner places ALL of their sports content on Bleacher Report, which I don't believe is the case right now. Honestly it's kind of hard to tell right now what is offered at various tiers, because people are getting different levels of subscriptions with other stuff without even knowing it. For instance, we get access to a lot of Turner Sports content through our cable subscription, but also get access to Max through our AT&T mobile service, so as far as we can tell, we can watch pretty much everything aside from specific Bleacher Report content (like boxing/MMA PPV and some European and Asian soccer/rugby/cricket). So from where I sit, Bleacher Report is a pretty useless add-on (even as a Tottenham Hotspur fan, which used to stream content and preseason games/scrimmages through Bleacher Report - the club has its own subscription platform now - is/was not worth buying).

With so many offers going right now, it's really hard to even know what streaming services you have access to either through your mobile phone subscription (as noted we get Max through our AT&T service, while I believe T-Mobile and maybe Verizon gives subscribers Netflix), Amazon Prime (obviously get Amazon and it's NFL package), WalMart+ (Paramount+), and who know what other deals are out there. It's a complete flustercuck to know what services you have, how long the subscriptions last, and what content you actually have access to.

I think that's really the biggest issue with the streaming wars. It's next to impossible to know where anything is, and particularly with sports leagues splitting their packages across multiple networks, a single subscription is no longer sufficient to get everything. For instance, I'm a University of Maryland fan, and the school is a member of the B1G. The new B1G TV package spreads games across FIVE (5) different platforms (NBC, Peacock, Fox/FS1/2, BTN, and CBS). For football, fans don't know what time/network a game will be on until 2 weeks ahead (and for the final 2 weeks of the season, that shrinks to 1 week). So, if you don't already have streaming subscriptions to NBC (through cable or broadcast), Peacock, Fox, BTN (premium Fox subscription), and Paramount+/CBS, you might be forced into buying a subscription to watch a single football game. It's a complete nightmare, and don't get me started on the technical issues with these networks that suddenly don't work right the second you actually want to sit down and watch something live - BTN for whatever reason won't stream for us even though we have a cable subscription for the service, and should be able to stream content through the Fox Sports App.

What I do know though is that Disney+ (by itself without Hulu or ESPN+) is by far least valuable of all the current major streamers - Hulu/ESPN, Paramount+, Max, Apple TV, Peacock, Netflix, and Amazon Prime, yet for whatever reason, Disney wants to charge the most.

I just have the add-on with Hulu, still keep it for some shows and such but agree on content lagging.

@ Russell - This Bleacher Report Sports Add-on tier for Max just launched on October 8th. (It's why you've seen so many live sports on the landing page for Max the past week). The add-on tier is free for now, but will cost $9.99 for Max subscribers beginning next spring (right before March Madness). It is apparently a way to capture cord cutters who still want access to the sports that are on TNT, TBS, etc..

As a University of Wisconsin grad, I could not agree more with you about the B1G. We currently subscribe to all of the platforms (with the exception of Paramount+, and I refuse to add it for one game). I think the big test coming up will be the NBA; how many different ways do they divide their content? I could be as many as 5, if the in-season tournament is sold off as an exclusive. At some point, people stop searching for your content (games) and move along with life. That will be the big question that needs to be answered. Will live niche sports drive enough subscribers to justify their costs and the loss of viewers on more mainstream platforms. Also, it isn't just you... we've never been able to get BTN to stream either.

Finally, as consumers have been forced to re-assemble a bundle (this time instead of cable, it is streaming), the one streamer that is not valuable is Disney+. There's no love sports, limited (compared to others) new/exclusive content, and the legacy content my kids are aging out of every day.

Well this is a FUN and not at all typical TPI discussion thread. Beginning with commentary about a Disney product's price.

Refreshing.

But when the TPI Regs post stuff like, "I do feel like the new original content on Disney+ substantially lags all other streaming services", or "As for Disney plus, my kids are 10 and 8, and outside of a few truly exclusive offerings (Star Wars shows and MCU shows), there is very little value", I have to wonder, outside of sports, what are the juggernaut "must see" titles offered by Max, Peacock and Prime that has planet all agog? What is the "original content" on "all other streaming services" that has CONSISTENTLY caused people (divided demographically) to reach for the remotes?

Yeah, I tend to agree with TH Creative here. If sports were not a consideration, the only non-Disney Plus streaming service I'd feel compelled to keep is Max. And that's because of shows like Last Week Tonight and Last of Us (and every year or two dipping into whatever prestige drama they're developing).

We get Netflix for "free" because of T-Mobile, I subscribe to Peacock because of the Premier League and we have the "Disney Bundle" with our Hulu Live subscription. It's expensive! But it's pretty much in line with what I paid when I last had cable, so, what are you gonna do.

Am I the only one on this site who still has cable?

While the rest of you are trying to figure out what streaming services to subscribe to, I'm trying to find the right remote control to get the tv on the right input, adjust my sound system, and remember which app has the shows that I like.

And the bigger problem is that there just aren't enough talented writers to go around. I'm seeing way too much garbage on some of these channels/apps that make Lifetime movies look like Oscar contenders.

These First World problems are a real bummer, aren't they?

TH - I believe, and this is just for me, that many (maybe most) of the other streaming services have more of a critical mass of adult oriented options. Max has/had the prestige shows: The Flight attendant, House of the Dragon, The Last of Us, Succession, etc.. plus their legacy prestige adult shows (think the shows that were traditionally on Sunday night) like the Wire, Boardwalk Empire, and the Sopranos. Prime has/had: The Lord of the Rings, Reacher, Jack Ryan, etc.. Netflix is the king, they have a critical mass of shows that lead to breakouts like Squid Game and The Queens Gambit. All of these also have more adult oriented content that is aimed above the 6 year old crowd... including documentaries that you don't see on regular TV.

Peacock - This one I will concede, we signed up for $19.99 for the year because my son is a Wolves fan, and this is the place for EPL teams that are rarely on USA/NBC. We did enjoy Based on a True Story, but it was not a needle mover by any stretch. Peacock is also not charging a premium price like Disney+.

I am a Disney fan...I love Star Wars, I like the MCU, (but that is getting more difficult as the quality is really lagging.) BUT...there just isn't enough to justify the price, particularly with the price hike. For an adult (and one with kids who are aging out of princesses and older animated movies), Disney+ is probably the streamer that will be cancelled because it isn't a value for the content. We never go to Disney+ to see what we might find to watch... But we do that on Netflix, Amazon, Max. If we go to Disney+, it is for one particular show, right now Loki before that Ahsoka.

@Tim - We still have cable, and wish the world would just stick with that entertainment delivery service that works for everyone. Paying a la carte for each individual streamer and/or toggling on/off subscriptions when your favorite programming is being released is just flat out annoying. I'd much rather pay one bill and get access to a full suite of programming that includes everything I watch along with plenty of channels I don't (as Bruce would say, "57 Channels and Nothin' On").

TH - I'll take on your challenge...The first flaw of Disney+ is that they're the ONLY major streaming service that doesn't show live sports. If you're a sports fan, like I am, here is a short list of the different streaming services and their current major sports offerings...

Peacock - B1G/Notre Dame College Sports (football and basketball), Sunday Night NFL, English Premier League (soccer), WWE (including premium live events), PGA Golf, NASCAR, Indy Car, Cycling (Tour de France), Rugby, and Olympics

Paramount+ - CBS NFL games (Sunday), UEFA Champions League (soccer), College sports (football and basketball), and Serie A (soccer)

Max/Turner Sports - NBA, NHL, MLB, US Soccer, NCAA Basketball Tournament (March Madness), Boxing, Belator (MMA), and AEW (wrestling including PPV)

Apple TV+ - MLS (Messi), and they were reportedly the frontrunner to broadcast PAC-12 sports starting in 2024 before the conference dissolved

Hulu/ESPN+ - NBA, NHL, MLB, NFL (Monday Night Football), NCAA Football/Basketball/Baseball/Hockey including SEC, ACC, and Longhorn Networks, English FA Cup and Carrabo Cup (soccer), LaLiga (soccer), Bundesliga (soccer), Formula 1, UFC, Boxing (Top Rank and PFL), Cricket, and lots of other miscellaneous sports and competitions

Fox Sports/BTN - B1G Sports as well as other college sports (football and basketball mostly), MLB, NFL, MLS, World Cup (soccer), Euro and other continental cups (soccer)

Amazon Prime - NFL Thursday Night Football

Now, if sports are not your thing, the recently released original, scripted entertainment for each of the services are...

Disney+ - Ahsoka, Loki, Elemental (originally released theatrically), Haunted Mansion (originally released theatrically), Goosebumps, and miscellaneous shorts and NatGeo content

Apple TV+ - Foundation, Invasion, The Morning Show, Lessons in Chemistry, and various original movies

Peacock - Chucky, The Continental (John Wick series), Twisted Metal, NBC scripted broadcast content, and recently release Universal movies (like Strays, Fast X, Asteroid City, Book Club The Next Chapter, and Super Mario Bros).

Paramount+ - Star Trek (current series Picard, Strange New Worlds, Discovery, and Lower Decks as well as all previous series), Frasier (reboot), Lioness, Ink Master (reality), CBS, Showtime, BET, and MTV scripted and reality programming shown on broadcast TV

Max - Meg 2 (originally released theatrically), HBO content (Last of Us, Game of Thrones, Succession, Last Week Tonight, Real Time with Bill Maher, etc...)

Hulu - American Horror Story, Fox scripted broadcast series, Only Murderers in the Building, Welcome to Wrexham, plus lots of other random current broadcast/cable TV series

Netflix - The Fall of the House of Usher, Beckham, The Wrestlers, Lupin, various original stand up comedy specials, and foreign TV (like Squid Game) and movies

Amazon Prime - Wheel of Time, Rings of Power, Bond Series, The Burial (movie), Gen V, Jack Ryan. The other clever feature of Amazon Prime is that it can integrate other streaming subscriptions into a single portal so you don't have to switch back and forth between services.

Ultimately, it depends on what you like to watch and what you have already seen. However, because Disney+ doesn't have access to live sports and doesn't provide content directly from any current broadcast or cable network, the amount of original content the service provides is definitely lacking compared to other services (save for maybe Amazon Prime, which has other benefits beyond streaming entertainment). For someone like me who watches a ton of live sports, Disney+ is the service I watch the least even when they're running original series which consume no more than an hour a week. I tend to bounce around a lot in my viewing, and occasionally will go back and binge shows I can watch on the streaming services that I may have missed when they first aired/streamed (currently watching Billions on Paramount+) in between original shows.

If it wasn't for sports, I'd probably toggle between subscriptions, because each one has originally programming that isn't available on broadcast or cable TV. I've liked the Star Wars and MCU content on Disney+, but aside from Mandalorian, none have been groundbreaking enough for me to want to watch a second time through (Andor and WandaVision are the best of the rest). I'm a massive Trekker, so Paramount+ is pretty much a MUST, plus they have UCL (soccer) and other decent original content (Rabbit Hole was good, but not as good as the first 5 seasons of 24).

I'm gonna try this again ... "I have to wonder, OUTSIDE OF SPORTS, what are the juggernaut 'must see' titles offered by Max, Peacock and Prime that has planet all agog? What is the "original content" on "all other streaming services" that has CONSISTENTLY caused people (divided demographically) to reach for the remotes"?

How about I take a different tack. At the height of its popularity the television show 'Roseanne' was garnering 32 million viewers per episode. You guys list a whole bunch of titles but there does not seem to be a standout show that grabs that level of attention.

If you're going to toss 'House of Dragons' into the mix, how does the heat for that show compare to 'Game of Thrones'? Is anyone gabbing about the most recent HOD around the Keurig machine on Monday mornings?

@MLB: 'The Flight Attendant'? Seriously?

Learning how the reply button works is hard.

"Speak up I'm old!" - Colonel Critchlow Sunchbench

I think Chucky is really good over at Peacock, though you could argue since you can also watch it on USA (and re-airs on Syfy) it's not exclusive to the streamer (though new episodes debut first on Peacock). As I noted previously, NBC/Peacock advertised The Continental very heavily as being the next big thing (even stars Mel Gibson), but with just 3 episodes and a mediocre plot, it was not what I wanted in an extension of the John Wick universe. Other Peacock must-sees are Poker Face (I haven't seen it, but my wife loved it) and Twisted Metal.

Over at Max, Doom Patrol is currently airing as well as a Taika Waititi pirate comedy Our Flag Means Death (I haven't personally watched either of these, but am familiar with them). Aside from those, there aren't a lot of new original scripted series currently available.

At Amazon Prime, you obviously have the big budget franchises they've pumped hundreds of millions of dollars into like Wheel of Time, Rings of Power, and Jack Ryan. Wheel of Time just finished its second season, and my understanding is that the Jack Ryan series might be done. They also have The Boys along with its spinoff currently airing, Gen V.

I also think it's a bit unfair right now to compare the services because a lot of productions that would be debuting right now have been halted due to the writers strike and ongoing actors strike. I also think that awareness of all these series and where they air has gotten lost because if you don't have subscriptions to all of the services, you don't know any of them exist. While you want to shove sports to the side TH, I think that's why Disney+ is at a distinct disadvantage because a lot of people become aware of new streaming content from ads that run during live/streaming sports. For instance, Amazon Prime has been heavily advertising new movies that debut on Thursdays during their Thursday Night Football coverage. If not for me watching the games (including once on broadcast where our local NFL team was featured and was allowed to sell rights to simulcast the broadcast on local TV) I would have never known those movies were available (The Burial, Awareness, and The Covenant - streaming debut from theatrical release).

That's what I think is the biggest problem with all of these streaming services. If you don't have subscriptions to all of them, you're bound to be unaware of what's available out there. Since very few are willing to advertise their content on competitors' services, you end up seeing ads only for programming on the services you do have. Even on broadcast and cable networks, ads for streaming content typically stays within the family except for Netflix, which doesn't have a relationship with a broadcast or cable network. I do feel that the streamers that have live sports have the luxury of ample airtime for commercials and thus get a leg up on the competition because they can make people aware of what is available on their service.

However, TH does make a good point in that current viewing habits show that we will probably never see another truly "hit" show like in the 70's-90's. Even though the current production values and quality of shows far outstrips what we saw during that era, people don't watch shows in the same way and the wealth and diversity of content out there means that views of shows will never reach those levels again because there's just so much stuff out there and some of it is super niche that appeals to specific type of people (segmenting of audiences). When you look at the annual list of highest rated TV shows every year, sports have been 2/3 to 3/4 of the top 100 for the past 5 years. Scripted programing is great, but the days of 30+ million people watching an episode of a series are over, which is why live sports have become such an important part of a streaming service's portfolio.

Before cable/internet was written into our HOA plan we were paying like $40 a month for basic, HBO, Showtime and a digital recorder. And this was at least seven years ago. If streaming never arrived is there any doubt that monthly rate would have gone up? Maybe to $60?

Streaming rates have to climb if these platforms are going to survive. And if you want to make some extra coin, invest your money in architect firms specializing in the redesign/repurposing of multiplexes.

@TH - I agree, and actually Netflix just announced yet another increase in their rates this morning. However, I think the biggest issue is because there are so many services trying to carve out their own piece of a pie that's probably not going to get any bigger (or at least not sizably), there eventually needs to be some level of consolidation. Frankly, the Hulu model was the right way to go about things, but the individual studios all got greedy when Netflix started to gain traction and dominate market share in the mid 2010s. The studios wanted to hold onto their own content instead of licensing it to an aggregator like Hulu, and the result has been pure chaos and a dilution of TV to the point where there is no single service that is a "must have".

FWIW, our cable/internet/phone bundle is well over $200/month, and we don't have any premium cable services (just an extra sports tier). Because of the bundling, it's difficult to quantify what we pay for our cable by itself, but it's probably close to $100/month, though that also grants us access to some streaming content as well.

@ TH -- It's kind of a specious argument that you put forth. Your question: "I have to wonder, OUTSIDE OF SPORTS, what are the juggernaut 'must see' titles offered by Max, Peacock and Prime that has planet all agog? What is the "original content" on "all other streaming services" that has CONSISTENTLY caused people (divided demographically) to reach for the remotes"? -- There aren't those shows...anywhere, not on network TV, not on cable TV, and not on streaming. With the proliferation of viewing options, the viewing audience has never been more fractured, with one exception: live sports, and more specifically the NFL.

To build on Russell's point about there no longer being "hits" of the level that were seen in the 70's-90's... This fact blew my mind. Before the issues with Kevin Costner, and just last year, we'd can all agree that Yellowstone was the show that captured attention and was that "big hit." It was the highest rated scripted TV episode of 2022, the Paramount Global’s multi-network simulcast (they had that show on nearly everyone of their networks) of the Season 5 premiere of Yellowstone, which was the No. 132 most watched show of the year with an average draw of 12.5 million live-plus-same-day viewers.

The focus on live sports in this discussion is purposeful: the NFL last year racked up 19 of the 20 most-viewed broadcasts, ceding only the No. 7 spot to President Biden’s Ukraine-inflected State of the Union Address on March 1. CBS’ FBI stands as TV’s most-watched entertainment program with an average draw of 7.21 million live-same-day viewers, but that pales in comparison with the numbers football puts up each week. The league’s top TV property, the national Sunday afternoon window shared by Fox and CBS, is currently averaging 25.8 million viewers, while linear deliveries for the primetime stalwart Sunday Night Football are just a hair under 19 million viewers. Now, I watch FBI, but I don't think anyone would argue that it is water-cooler, much watch TV. Discounting broadcasts that benefited from the huge inflation of a Super Bowl lead-in, the last time a scripted series found it's place among the top 100 was in 2019, when the hour-long series finale of The Big Bang Theory averaged 18.5 million viewers. For comparison sake, ER's top rated season was its second in 1995 where it averaged 35.7 million viewers. The show was cancelled in 2009 when it average 9.0 million viewers. Today, that number would make ER a breakout hit.

All of these streaming services (and for that matter cable networks) are niche entertainment delivery systems. You search out the ones that fit your niche, and as this thread has attempted to illustrate, Disney+ with its price hikes and upcoming (Iger confirmed) cut backs in production, will no longer have enough new content, particularly content that appeals to adults. Add in the fact that there is no live sports content on Disney+, and that equates to a long term problem. Every other one of the streamers, as Russell has illustrated, have sports options that are a draw for a dedicated group of consumers.

@MLB: Where exactly did I say Disney+ doesn't have "a long term problem"?

@TH - Your defense of all things Disney, including your circular arguments about all of the other streaming services, for one.

Also, I saw that you were questioning the Flight Attendant. I didn't watch it, but a lot of women apparently did. When launched, it was the highest rated premier ever on HBO Max. (I think it is still 2nd.)

MLB: "@TH - Your defense of all things Disney ..."

Me: "All things?" I never posted anything on this thread that claims Disney+ doesn't have "a long term problem". And no where on this thread did I defend Disney or Disney+ regarding anything.

Maybe you should just leave me alone, okay?

To be fair TH, while you haven't explicitly backed Disney+ here, you have conveniently avoided criticizing Disney+ while pointing out flaws in other services by rebutting and pull-quoting other posters who do identify deficiencies in the service.

I would tend to agree that the streaming entertainment industry in general has a significant financial problem right now and major changes in the current ecosystems are essential if the industry is going to survive long-term. However, this thread was created to discuss recent price increases to Disney+, which the OP didn't feel were justified given a recent decline in original content on the service compared to competitors and a complete lack of live programing (mostly sports) that most other services offer. You can certainly compare and contrast the various scripted and reality content available on the various services and try to take sports out of the equation, but when Disney+ raises prices to be more expensive than other services that do offer live sports, you have to take that into account when doing that comparison. As MLB and I have noted, scripted entertainment doesn't move the needle like it used to, and while some shows may drive subscriptions more than others, sports have become the real differentiator in the streaming wars. Netflix has been able to carve its niche without sports based primarily on volume (lots of cheap to produce/license foreign shows and movies). Disney+ has tried to offer quality over quantity and the famed "Disney Vault", which led to strong results early in the game, but with the volume of content that's new to American subscribers starting to decline, they've slowly yielded market share over the past year. Apple TV+ has taken a similar quality over quantity approach, but that changed when they started dabbling in live sports last year (occasional NFL games) and secured full-season rights for MLB and MLS (Messi). The other streaming services have been able to maintain or increase their subscriber bases by leveraging their live sports content while maintaining (or only slightly increasing) their current prices. That doesn't necessarily mean other services won't eventually change their tactics (as others have noted, Max will start charging extra for sports next spring), but the Disney+ price increase seems unwarranted in the current climate.

FWIW, Disney has chosen to keep ESPN (and live sports) as a separate division with entertainment (movies, TV, and streaming - Hulu and Disney+) and Parks and Experiences as the other 2 divisions of the company. If Disney is to maintain this organizational structure, and wants to keep its live sports business separate, it's going to continue to be at a disadvantage to its competitors who leverage live sports to draw and maintain their subscriber bases for original scripted entertainment.

Russell: "To be fair TH, while you haven't explicitly backed Disney+ here, you have conveniently avoided criticizing Disney+ while pointing out flaws in other services by rebutting and pull-quoting other posters who do identify deficiencies in the service."

Me: And that would support the claim that I believe (and have indicated in a post on this thread) that Disney+ does not have "a long term problem"?

Um ... okay.

@TH - So why don't you just come out and say in plain English that Disney+ has "a long term problem" instead of dancing around the topic of this thread by critiquing other services and the audacity of contributors to complain about a Disney product?

Then we can discuss whether Disney+ is better equipped than its competitors to weather that problem, which is clearly an industry-wide issue.

Because Disney+ does not have a "long term problem". It has an immediate problem. A problem they have to grapple with month-to-month and quarter-to-quarter.

And by the way, Russell's observation, "you have conveniently avoided criticizing Disney+" framed in the context of MLB's assertion about my "defense of all things Disney", is pretty indicative of the tenor and tone of TPI discussion/comment threads. That is, if your posts are NOT over-the-top critical of Disney -- if you don't offer continued, consistent relentless attacks on the company -- you will be branded a fanboy, or to use a term created by one of the wiser TPI regs a "Disney drone".

@TH - There is a middle ground. You can appreciate the legacy of Disney, while pointing out the mistakes that the company is currently making. It's called being a realist about the company and its future. As a stockholder, I am worried about the copious errors (many of which have been unforced) that this company has made in recent years. One of he biggest issues this company has it the comparison to its past glory (particularly in the theme parks). I do not think it is "over the top critical" of Disney to point out the issues that the company is currently facing or are coming down the proverbial pike.

* Hulu is a more than $7 billion dollar question.
* The CEO has indicated that he wants to shed non-core assets including (potentially) ABC, but that makes rights negotiations with the NBA, NFL, etc.. more difficult. There have been promises made about certain properties being on broadcast TV (NBA finals, Super Bowl). Those assets are also diminished in value, and when it appears you're looking to shed assets, the price plummets: see the Byron Allen bid.
* The theme parks are no longer the dominant force they once were as Universal in Orlando and Tokyo are nipping at their heels.
* Pixar has been an absolute mess.
* Marvel and the MCU are showing cracks, particularly if you look at the performance of everything post- End Game. And, the Marvels tracking numbers are worse than the Flash.
* Star Wars has a lot of negativity and questions surrounding its future after the past two movies and the Book of Boba Fett. (I am a huge Star Wars fan, so do not say I am being overly critical...its a fact that the past two movies were not well received).
* Disney+ -- I think we've beaten that dead horse, but there are issues.

I could go on, but I think I've proven my point that it is not being overly critical to say that this is the most adversity this company has faced since the poison pill in the 80's to prevent a hostile takeover. To not acknowledge these challenges is like Nero looking over Rome as the blaze began...

@MLB Two questions.

Question 1. You wrote "@TH - Your defense of all things Disney ..." Again that's "all things" ... When and where on TPI have I ever defended Mr. Iger's suggestion that the company sell off ABC?

Question 2. Which part of "leave me alone" do you not understand?