{"id":50867,"date":"2025-01-23T13:27:00","date_gmt":"2025-01-23T19:27:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/?p=50867"},"modified":"2025-01-23T14:13:23","modified_gmt":"2025-01-23T20:13:23","slug":"moanas-roundabout-voyage-back-to-the-multiplex-a-guest-post-by-nicholas-benson-and-zachary-zahos","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/2025\/01\/23\/moanas-roundabout-voyage-back-to-the-multiplex-a-guest-post-by-nicholas-benson-and-zachary-zahos\/","title":{"rendered":"Moana’s roundabout voyage back to the multiplex: A guest post by Nicholas Benson and Zachary Zahos"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

I dimly remember hearing in late 2020 that the sequel to Moana (2016) was going to be Moana: The Series, streaming on Disney+ rather than a theatrical feature. David and I liked Moana very much, but in those of Covid and non-theater-going, it seemed a minor thing. A series wasn’t appealing, and we could just ignore it. Then about a year ago it was re-announced as a theatrical feature. I just assumed that the powers-that-be had simply decided that what was by that time being called Moana 2 would make more money by being released “Only in theaters,” as the posters inevitably pointed out.<\/em><\/p>\n

That was true, but there’s much more lurking behind such a decision. Straight to streaming or released to theaters first? has become a puzzling question for studios as they discover that the huge profits they assumed their new streaming services would bring in were not all that huge or maybe not profits at all.<\/em><\/p>\n

I am delighted to have two experts, Nicholas Benson and Zachary Zahos, who follow the distribution strategies of the film industry, contribute a guest post on how Moana 2’s change from modest Disney+ series to a box-office hit creeping up on the total domestic gross of Wicked reflects major shifts in the industry’s decisions about releasing options.<\/em><\/p>\n

Nicholas Benson received his Ph.D. in Media and Cultural Studies from the University of Wisconsin-Madison and is now an Assistant Professor in the Department of Communication and Media at SUNY Oneonta. His current work considers the intersection of discourses of storytelling and management within franchise production cultures. Zachary Zahos<\/a> also received his Ph.D. from the University of Wisconsin-Madison and is currently serving as Public History Fellow at the Wisconsin Center for Film and Theater Research. Back in September Zach and Matt St. John contributed a entry to this blog<\/a>, examining a claim that movie lovers had stopped going to theaters.<\/em><\/p>\n

Thank you, Nick and Zach, for your contribution to our understanding of the current tangled distribution systems of the current industry! Over to you.<\/em><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The curse has been lifted\u2014at Walt Disney Pictures.<\/p>\n

After a run of box-office bombs, Disney\u2019s flagship film studios bounced back in 2024: Pixar with Inside Out 2<\/em>, 2024\u2019s top-grossing film, and Walt Disney Animation Studios with Moana 2<\/em>, which just cleared $1 billion globally. Even Mufasa: The Lion King<\/em>, a CGI prequel produced by Disney\u2019s live-action division, looks destined to overcome a weak start to become a profitable \u201csleeper hit<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n

The cynical read on all this is that Disney, to quote The Town<\/em>\u2019s Matt Belloni<\/a>, \u201cengineered\u201d a surefire 2024 by pushing riskier bets, such as Pixar\u2019s Elio<\/em> and the Snow White<\/em> remake, to this calendar year. But, at the end of the day, adaptive engineering, risk mitigation, studio chicanery, whatever you call it\u2014this is how Hollywood lives to tell another tale, and you need not look further than Moana 2<\/em> for a revealing case of Disney executives reading the horizon and changing course.<\/p>\n

Moana 2<\/em>\u2019s present status, as a resounding theatrical success, interests us in particular due to the roundabout journey\u2014and P.R. spin\u2014it took to get here. For those unaware, the film now playing in multiplexes called Moana 2<\/em> was greenlit in 2020<\/a> as a television series (titled Moana: The Series<\/em>) for the company\u2019s streaming platform Disney+<\/em>. It was only last February when CEO Bob Iger announced that this project<\/a> was instead heading to theaters under the new title Moana 2<\/em>. While the trades were quick to discuss the financial calculus behind such a shift (per Deadline<\/em><\/a>: \u201cafter misfires \u2026 more Moana<\/em> is a safe bet for the House of Mouse\u201d), Disney has been careful to publicly attribute this decision to creative, rather than business-minded, imperatives. For instance, Jennifer Lee, former CCO at Disney Animation, told Entertainment Weekly<\/em><\/a> in September:<\/p>\n

We constantly screen [our projects], even in drawing [phase] with sketches. It was getting bigger and bigger and more epic, and we really wanted to see it on the big screen. It creatively evolved, and it felt like an organic thing.<\/strong><\/p>\n

As genuine as this sentiment might be, we sincerely doubt that Moana 2<\/em>\u2019s last-minute about-face, from streaming series to theatrical film, emerged from creative disagreements alone. The film industry has changed rapidly over the last five years\u2014streaming has undergone its own boom and bust cycle<\/a> during this time, with vintage concepts like advertising, bundling, and return-on-investment, bringing Hollywood executives down to earth. In short, the Walt Disney Company that announced Moana: The Series<\/em> in 2020 is different from the one that released Moana 2<\/em> in theaters last month.<\/p>\n

Longtime readers will recall this blog\u2019s fondness for the first film, as shared by David<\/a>, Kristin<\/a>, and Jeff Smith<\/a>. We count ourselves Moana<\/em> fans, as well, while also agreeing with critical consensus that Moana 2<\/em> lacks the inspiration (or songs) of the original.<\/p>\n

But what follows is not a review. While we will make reference to certain storytelling choices present in the film, our main goal here is to argue that Moana 2<\/em>\u2014or, more specifically, the production and circulation context surrounding it\u2014is symptomatic of a global industry in flux.<\/strong> As the world\u2019s largest legacy entertainment company, Disney is not one to buck trends but rather to reinforce them. An engaged analysis of Disney\u2019s recent executive-level decisions offers us a chance to gauge which way the winds of commerce are blowing.<\/p>\n

Yet the company\u2019s sheer scope, both internally and across its multi-generational audiences, invariably creates sites of tension and contest. We see that in Jennifer Lee\u2019s public assurances concerning Disney\u2019s creative community, and not its C-suite, steered Moana 2<\/em> into theaters. But we also see such tension and contest in how Moana 2<\/em>\u2019s production history throws long-standing hierarchies at the Walt Disney Company into relief. As a result of Disney+ and recent executive initiatives which we will delve into here, the line separating the company\u2019s film and television output has become increasingly blurred, as have the rules for successfully exploiting marquee franchises, particularly those geared toward younger audiences.<\/p>\n

What is clear to us is that, even in success<\/a>, Disney+ has failed to solve all of its parent company\u2019s problems and in the process has created several new ones. This is not simply because of profit margins, but also because such investments, from both studio and audience, run downstream from discursive categories like \u201cfilm,\u201d \u201ctelevision,\u201d and \u201cstreaming.\u201d<\/p>\n

In the case of Moana 2<\/em>, the shift of Disney\u2019s prized sequel from the \u201cstreaming television\u201d to the \u201ctheatrical film\u201d column, months out from release, occurred in large part due to the promise of greater financial returns. That much seems obvious, no matter what Jennifer Lee and other creative executives say, given how most studios across the industry have learned to love movie theaters again<\/a>.<\/p>\n

But we do not wish to suggest these leaders are lying through their teeth, either. As strategic as Lee\u2019s statement to Entertainment Weekly<\/em> may have been, she does seem to genuinely represent the values and norms of the world\u2019s most famous animated film studio. Where else but<\/em> movie theaters do you go when you design your expensive franchise sequel to be \u201cbigger and more epic\u201d? So, while Moana 2<\/em> sailed back to multiplexes amidst an industry-wide correction away from pyrrhic victories in streaming, its journey looks especially inevitable if you account for the particular industrial apparatus from which the film came.<\/p>\n

We\u2019ll expand on these ideas by teasing out a few historical threads relevant to Moana 2<\/em>\u2019s production. These concern Disney+, Disney Animation Studios, and the Walt Disney Company, as well as the latter\u2019s general playbook toward franchising animated entertainment.<\/p>\n

Disney+ and the business of animation today<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Disney\u2019s recent theatrical rebound is notable given the obstacles\u2014some of them industry-wide, others self-inflicted\u2014its film division has faced since its peak in 2019. That year, Walt Disney Studios reported $11.1 billion<\/a> in worldwide theatrical revenue, with a record seven films (among them the animated sequels Toy Story 4<\/em> and Frozen II<\/em>) each surpassing $1 billion at the global box office. In November of 2019, the company launched its Disney+ streaming platform. While it always seemed destined to succeed, Disney+ exploded in growth<\/a> months later as the COVID pandemic closed theaters and Disney\u2019s theme parks.<\/p>\n

Since that high-water mark, Disney\u2019s films have struggled, partially due to counterproductive distribution decisions and a streaming-focused production pipeline. On the distribution side, during the pandemic then-CEO Bob Chapek (above) launched Disney+\u2019s day-and-date \u201cPremier Access\u201d program<\/a> and arranged for Pixar\u2019s latest films<\/a>, beginning with Soul<\/em> (2020), to skip theaters and instead premiere on the streaming platform. While this strategy fueled subscriber growth, almost every animated film Disney released to theaters in its wake, most notably Lightyear <\/em>(2022) and Strange World<\/em> (2022), underperformed<\/a> at the box office. Analysts have attributed this cold streak to a range of causes<\/a>, including the notion that Disney\u2019s streaming release strategy had \u201cconditioned audiences<\/a>\u201d to wait for theatrical releases to hit streaming.<\/p>\n

Much ink has already been spilled on another contributing pop psychology phenomenon, that of \u201cfranchise fatigue<\/a>.\u201d The idea that audiences are burned out by the proliferation and interconnectedness of so much franchise material may not be neatly supported by the data. The top 10 movies of 2024<\/a> were all franchise properties, after all. It is a more credible notion if one examines Disney\u2019s many spin-offs on streaming. Since 2019, the company\u2019s marquee film production companies, among them LucasFilm and Marvel Studios, have shifted resources to producing long-form television series for Disney+. LucasFilm and Marvel respectively launched their Disney+ slates with The Mandalorian <\/em>and WandaVision<\/em>, both of which were well received and highly rated. But ever since, Disney\u2019s streaming series have attracted increasingly mixed critical responses<\/a> (even after controlling for toxic fan reactions<\/a>) and diminishing viewership numbers (here<\/a> and here<\/a>).<\/p>\n

That does not mean all Disney+ originals are destined for failure. What seems increasingly clear is that certain forms of programming, such as animation, perform more consistently, albeit under a typically lower ceiling of viewership. In October, The Hollywood Reporter<\/em> published a 3000+ word article<\/a> headlined, \u201cIs Disney Bad at Star Wars<\/em>? An Analysis.\u201d To be clear, the piece answers its core question with, \u201cOn balance, no.” Nevertheless, this article is relevant to this discussion in that it contrasts the strong ratings of the Star Wars<\/em> animated series on Disney+ with the franchise\u2019s live-action series for the same platform. New animated series like The Bad Batch<\/em> have more than earned their keep, with their large volume of episodes (usually 16 per season vs. 8 for live-action series) driving viewer engagement at a fraction of the cost of their recent live-action counterparts.<\/p>\n

So, Disney+ is a sensible launching pad for new animated Star Wars<\/em> series. Does that make it also wise to premiere the latest Disney Princess tale on the same platform? (Despite Moana 2<\/em>\u2019s \u201cStill not a princess!\u201d joke, in the eyes of Disney<\/a>, she officially is one, as the Princesses scene in Ralph Breaks the Internet<\/em>, below, demonstrates.) Well, that depends.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Traditionally, Disney has had three main paths for exploiting animated franchise content: theatrical distribution, commercial television, and direct-to-video (DTV). Each of these had clear advantages and disadvantages, and for many years these three paths looked fairly straightforward. Theatrical distribution, both then and now, is prestigious and visible to a large, diverse audience, and it comes with the potential for massive global box office revenues and merchandising opportunities which can immediately counteract the large budget.<\/p>\n

The other two categories\u2014commercial television and DTV\u2014were lucrative paths for many years at the Walt Disney Company, but under the Disney+ paradigm have begun to appear less distinct from the theatrical option. Commercial television traditionally came with less expectation that it feel cinematic, and therefore could be made on a smaller budget. Television series promise a smaller, more concentrated audience of children or existing fans and a long tail financial model that relies on revenue generated through ad support and future syndication possibilities. DTV content, for its part, follows a similar model to commercial television but at an even lower scale of cost, with accordingly lower (but faster) profit potential.<\/p>\n

The visibility of commercial television content within the Disney animated fold is moderate (and outright low for DTV). Millions of children apparently watched the Tangled<\/em> (2010) spin-off Rapunzel\u2019s Tangled Adventures<\/em>, which was produced by Disney Television Animation and aired from 2017 to 2020 on the Disney Channel. We don\u2019t expect you, reader, to have heard of this show, though at the same time we would be surprised if you never before heard of Tangled<\/em>.\u00a0 Thus, even resounding successes of this type will remain off the radar of the general, adult-aged public, and so commercial television spin-offs, even if not the highest quality, will not inherently hurt the brand as a large film can.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s on this last point, regarding visibility, where the project formerly known as Moana: The Series <\/em>was always destined to be different. With the company\u2019s flagship studio, Disney Animation Studios, producing it, the budget leaped beyond any animated project Disney produced before for television or DTV. Launching Moana: The Series<\/em> exclusively on Disney+ had potential upside, but as we will see, these benefits began to look questionable.<\/p>\n

Moana\u2019s voyage toward streaming…\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Moana: The Series<\/em> was first announced<\/a>, by Jennifer Lee, at the virtual Disney Investor Day event in December 2020. The broader theme of the investor\u2019s day was Disney\u2019s new structure, which separated content creation from distribution in a bid to turn to what newly appointed CEO Bob Chapek referred<\/a> to as a \u201cDTC [direct-to-consumer] first business model.\u201d The Moana<\/em> series thus joined a slate of other Disney+ releases, including day-and-date release movies like Raya and the Last Dragon<\/em> (2021), Marvel series such as Loki<\/em> (2021-2023), and limited series such as WandaVision<\/em> (2021). Though executives continued to gesture towards the importance of \u201clegacy distribution platforms,\u201d such as theatrical and linear television, the focus was on the corporation’s investment in Disney+. As Chapek put it in his opening statement:<\/p>\n

We knew this one-of-a-kind service featuring content only Disney can create would resonate with consumers and stand out in the marketplace and needless to say Disney+ has exceeded our wildest expectations.<\/strong><\/p>\n

The idea to expand the Moana<\/em> franchise into a series, therefore, was a direct result of corporate confidence in DTC platforms as the future of distribution. Chapek\u2019s new corporate structure promised a streamlined production pipeline that seemed to completely separate the creation and production process from the distribution process \u2014 in other words, creatives would generate content and then the distribution team would figure out the best way to get that content to the consumer. Chapek explained the structure in a statement:<\/p>\n

Managing content creation distinct from distribution will allow us to be more effective and nimble in making the content consumers want most, delivered in the way they prefer to consume it. Our creative teams will concentrate on what they do best\u2014making world-class, franchise-based content\u2014while our newly centralized global distribution team will focus on delivering and monetizing that content in the most optimal way across all platforms, including Disney+, Hulu, ESPN+ and the coming Star international streaming service.<\/strong><\/p>\n

This new agnostic approach to distribution seemed to lead to a general confusion about how to staff DTC productions. The Moana<\/em> follow-up presented a mixed bag in terms of who was brought back from the original production. Voice talent Dayne Johnson and Auli\u02bbi Cravalho respectively reprised their roles as Maui and Moana. However, original Moana<\/em> directors Ron Clements and John Musker were absent. Instead, Jason Hand, Dana Ledoux Miller and David G. Derrick Jr. (above) were hired to co-direct and run the series. Hand, who had the most experience working with Disney animation of the three, started his career at Disney in 2005, as a layout artist on the DTV sequels Tarzan 2: The Legend Begins<\/em> and Lilo & Stitch 2: Stitch Has a Glitch<\/em>. Disney has a well-known apprenticeship program and tends to hire and promote from within, so it\u2019s not out of the ordinary that a series like this would be given to greener talent looking to gain experience.<\/p>\n

That said, Moana: The Series<\/em>\u2019s production team was indicative of a broader ambivalence the company seemed to have about how much to invest in, and therefore how to staff, DTC content. While the series Baymax!<\/em> (2022) brought in Big Hero 6<\/em> (2014) director Don Hall as showrunner, other series like Zootopia+ <\/em>(2022) and the upcoming Tiana<\/em> (2025) did not bring back the same directing or writing teams from the original films. Instead, Zootopia+<\/em> was directed by Trent Correy and Josie Trinidad, who previously worked in the Animation and Story departments on Zootopia<\/em>, respectively. Tiana<\/em> is reportedly being run<\/a> by Joyce Sherri, who served as staff writer for the Netflix miniseries Midnight Mass<\/em> (2021).<\/p>\n

\u2026and back to the multiplex<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

News on the Moana<\/em> series remained sparse from 2020 until February 2024, when Bob Iger announced during a CNBC interview that the series would now be a theatrical feature slated for a fall 2024 release. The news came shortly before a Q1 earning call where he assured shareholders<\/a> that \u201cthe stage is now set for significant growth and success, including ample opportunity to increase shareholder returns as our earnings and free cash flow continue to grow.\u201d<\/p>\n

Iger’s assurance came on the heels of a tumultuous few years for Disney, after a series of box-office failures and an internal struggle for power<\/a> that resulted in the ousting of CEO Bob Chapek and a return to the post for Iger. While the issues faced by Disney were multifaceted, the all-in approach to DTC content was central to the company’s financial struggles. Subscriber fees could only generate so much revenue, and that revenue didn\u2019t seem enough to sustain the enormous content library required to maintain a streaming platform. In September of 2022, Bob Chapek indicated to Hollywood Reporter<\/em><\/a> that Disney+ had a content problem. As Chapek put it:<\/p>\n

It\u2019s important to go back to when Disney+ was launched and what the hypothesis was about how much food you had to give that system for it to truly maximize its potential, and I would say we dramatically underestimated the hungry beast and how much content it needed to be fed.<\/strong><\/p>\n

The extent of this issue became apparent during a 2023 lawsuit against Disney<\/a> by investors alleging Disney hid the actual costs of running the service to offer the appearance of profit potential. Though the service is reportedly now profitable, since its inception Disney+ has racked up over 11 billion<\/a> dollars in losses, showing that the DTC, subscription-based model has not been the massive success it was predicted to be in 2020.<\/p>\n

In late 2024, as the premiere for the re-titled Moana 2 <\/em>approached, those who worked on it related to press outlets various versions of how the series abruptly shifted to a theatrical film. We can return to that September Entertainment Weekly<\/em> profile<\/a> to see a few explanations side-by-side. For instance, co-director David G. Derrick Jr. described the decision to pivot from a series to a feature film as a moment of \u201cmutual realization\u201d between the studio\u2019s various teams:<\/p>\n

It became apparent very early on that this wanted to be on the big screen. It felt like a groundswell within the whole studio.\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

Co-director Dana Ledoux Miller framed it as a push from the creatives, out of a desire to showcase their work. She suggested the project had \u201cthe best artists in the world\u201d and added:<\/p>\n

Why are we not letting them shine on the biggest screen in the biggest way?<\/strong><\/p>\n

This rhetoric stood in sharp contrast to Chapek\u2019s 2020 Investor Day video, in which he seemed to downplay the importance of theatrical distribution in favor of the convenience of DTC exhibition. At that point, there was no sense that artists would feel minimized by having their work showcased on DTC platforms. Instead, these new comments by the creative team touted theatrical exhibition as a prestigious honor and the only way to showcase quality artistic achievement.<\/p>\n

In other words, after years of the studio relegating several projects to Disney+ or day-and-date releases, Moana 2<\/em>\u2019s pivot feels like a pointed reinvestment in the theatrical experience. Jennifer Lee reinforced this perspective when she said to Entertainment Weekly<\/em>:<\/p>\n

Supporting the theaters is something that we talked about. \u2026 We love Disney+, but it will go there eventually. You could really put it anywhere, but these artists create stories that they want to see on the big screen and that we want the world to see on the big screen.<\/strong><\/p>\n

When the show was reworked as a movie, the absence of certain high-profile talent associated with the first Moana<\/em>\u2014especially popular songwriter Lin-Manual Miranda\u2014became apparent. The official reason for Miranda\u2019s absence was that he was already committed to another Disney theatrical project, Mufasa: The Lion King<\/em> (2024). While Moana<\/em> composers Mark Mancina and Opetaia Foa\u2019i did return to score the movie, the new songs for the sequel were primarily composed by Abigail Barlow and Emily Bear. The two were, as Billboard<\/em> put it<\/a>, \u201cthe youngest (and only all-women) songwriting duo to create a full soundtrack for a Disney animated film.\u201d Until that point their only real credit was writing an unsanctioned viral musical based on the Netflix show Bridgerton <\/em>(2020 – ). Though having young women write the music for a musical about young women was a positive move for Disney, the pair’s relative inexperience became more conspicuous when the Disney+ show was transformed into a tentpole feature film. In its review of the film, The Hollywood Reporter<\/em> noted<\/a> that \u201cMiranda\u2019s absence is unfortunately felt\u201d throughout the musical numbers. Variety<\/em>, more pointedly, called the new batch<\/a> of songs, \u201cimitation-Lin-Manual knockoffs.\u201d<\/p>\n

The lack of personnel continuity between Moana<\/em> and Moana 2<\/em> highlights the general disorganization within Disney\u2019s new corporate structure. Despite the claim that content can be created and then distributed wherever by reading the will of the data gods, the reality is projects still seem to work best when the venue of the exhibition is known during the early stages of production. When Disney has done theatrical sequels they tend to staff them with creative talent from the original. Jennifer Lee oversaw the creation of Frozen 2<\/em> (2019), Andrew Stanton returned for Finding Dory<\/em> (2016), and Pete Doctor directed Inside Out 2<\/em> (2024). Though Miranda claims he was otherwise preoccupied, one wonders if he would have still worked on Mufasa: The Lion King<\/em> had he known the Moana<\/em> follow-up was destined for a theatrical release.<\/p>\n

While this is primarily an industry analysis, even a cursory look at Moana 2<\/em>\u2019s narrative reveals the editorial marks left by this unusual production. As with the first film, the sequel tasks Moana with breaking an ancient curse, except this one was set by a storm god named Nalo, who drove the different peoples of Polynesia apart. With this clear objective, Moana remains a classical, goal-oriented protagonist, but the seams begin to show once you look at the other characters. Curiously, Nalo remains an off-screen antagonist, who is not properly introduced until a mid-credits scene that mimics Thanos\u2019s first appearance in The Avengers<\/em> (2011). The journey is also now populated by a group of secondary characters easily identified by a defining trait (e.g., Moni is a huge Maui fanboy). The first act, set on Moana\u2019s well-populated island of Motunui, feels especially abridged from the project\u2019s looser, episodic origins<\/a>, and the onslaught of new characters leaves little room for the emotional depth and character development that many critics respect about the first film (here<\/a> and here<\/a>).<\/p>\n

The seams where Moana: The Series<\/em> was stitched together into Moana 2 <\/em>are not only evident in the story, but in the production and promotion as well. Being forced into the throes of a giant A-list press junket was probably not what these first time directors signed up for; it\u2019s certainly something the team behind the direct-to-video Cinderella II: Dreams Come True<\/em> (2002) never had to deal with, and for good reason.<\/p>\n

Yet Moana 2<\/em>\u2019s directors were left answering questions about decisions made in the first movie they had little or no control over. For example, the cute pig Pua, whom fans felt was underused in the original movie, took on a more prominent role in the sequel. When asked by CinemaBlend<\/em><\/a> if they responded to any feedback about the first film, director\/writer Dana Ledoux Miller responded:<\/p>\n

Look, people really wanted Pua in that first movie on the canoe. I wasn’t around, but we put Pua on the canoe now.<\/strong><\/p>\n

While not overly awkward, the exchange highlights the behind-the-scenes break in continuity. Similarly, young songwriters who should be establishing their own identity were instead having their work compared to the beloved music of Lin-Manuel Miranda. Ultimately, while this has financially paid off for Disney, Moana 2<\/em> was clearly a ship built for the smaller more secluded waters of Disney+. Though it has survived, the tepid reviews suggest it may have been only by the skin of its teeth.<\/p>\n

Riding the popcorn-bucket wave
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Moana 2<\/em> is not only indicative of the pitfalls of the DTC model but highlights the inherent potential of theatrical distribution, especially for franchised content. Despite lukewarm reviews, the movie has already earned record numbers at the box office. More importantly, it has reignited interest in the brand more broadly. Moana<\/em> became the latest entry in a list of high-profile collectors\u2019 popcorn buckets<\/a> distributed by theaters (above).<\/p>\n

While they might seem like a gimmick, these popcorn buckets have become an integral aspect of the theatrical distribution model and the \u201cpost-pandemic \u2018identification\u2019 of moviegoing<\/a>.\u201d \u00a0 They \"\"<\/a>work in favor of both the theaters and the studios by raising awareness about the films and the brand. As one journalist pointed out<\/a>, \u201cI didn\u2019t realize Despicable Me 4<\/em> was happening until I saw the popcorn bucket.\u201d With the release of toy lines (Funko dolls aplenty, including Pua, above and left), popcorn buckets (and nacho boats!), and theme park tie-ins, the hype machine that spins around a massive theatrical release has become somewhat intuitive over the past century in a way that DTC models have difficulty emulating, even with the benefit of synergy within vertically integrated corporate structures.<\/p>\n

Though box-office numbers are important, this hype is equally valuable. In this way, Moana 2<\/em> was a success even before it debuted. The trailer for Moana 2<\/em> broke the record for the most-watched trailer for a Disney movie ever, reaching over 178 million views in 24 hours<\/a>. Likely not coincidentally, that trailer ended with an image of Maui holding Pua, announcing that this cute character was, as Miller had put it, \u201con the canoe\u201d and (more importantly) ripe for new licensing deals. When Moana 2<\/em> was announced to be a movie, it kicked off one of the largest and most lucrative global merchandising campaigns in recent memory. Apart from Moana<\/em> merchandise, there were brand partnerships with airlines to local Hawaiian food chains. Imagery flooded public spaces<\/a>. Hasbro introduced cutting-edge 3D printing technology<\/a> to inject toys and dolls as quickly as possible into the marketplace. This success, both in theaters and retail, suggests that even if somewhat clunky, the 11th-hour decision to turn a television show into a movie seems to have been financially prudent \u2013 at least in this instance.<\/p>\n

New rules, some of them old<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

During Disney\u2019s 2024 Q4 earnings call, Bob Iger admitted, seemingly unintentionally, the motivation for recent subscription price increases for Disney+. According to Iger, these streaming price hikes were designed less to generate revenue through subscriber fees and more to shift consumers to the ad-supported model<\/a>:<\/p>\n

It\u2019s not just about raising pricing, it\u2019s about moving consumers to the advertiser-supported side of the streaming platform. \u2026 The pricing that we recently put into place, which is increased pricing, was actually designed to move more people in the AVOD [advertising video-on-demand] direction because we know that the ARPU [average revenue per user] \u2014 and interest in it from advertisers in streaming \u2014 has grown.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Iger\u2019s comments point to how these companies are starting to recognize (or grapple with) where the actual value of the streaming service lies within the broader corporate structure: specifically, how the streaming service functions, or serves, the vast media franchises these companies have restructured around. Until recently, executives imagined them<\/a> as vertically integrated platforms that allowed corporations to get content directly to consumers without the need for middlemen (though, with the exception of Comcast, third-party telecom companies still control the actual distribution pipeline, complicating the notion that these are truly vertically integrated systems). As this system evolves to support ads<\/a>, content will need to be capable of sustaining viewers over time and selling ad space to sponsors. In other words, despite all the obfuscation of what will likely amount to a transition period, streaming services seem destined to be mostly a different distribution platform for what had been commonly known for the past century simply as commercial television.<\/em><\/p>\n

Despite some disruptions<\/a> over the past several years, theatrical distribution continues to hold a privileged position in the cultural zeitgeist, especially for high-profile properties. Movies can air on TV, but the experience of watching them is still culturally different from that of watching something in a movie in the theater. The act of going to the movies is an event apart from one\u2019s day-to-day life (one must schedule a movie, what David called “appointment viewing”<\/a>), while television, regardless of its distribution mechanism, remains intertwined with the cadence of one\u2019s daily routine.<\/p>\n

Take, for example, a recent review of Mufasa: The Lion King<\/em> (2024) in Polygon.<\/em> Writer Petrana Raduloviv opines<\/a> that the movie would have fared\u00a0 better as a video-on-demand release:<\/p>\n

Mufasa: <\/em><\/strong>The Lion King<\/em>, the 2024 movie about Simba\u2019s majestic father, seems like it could exist right alongside Simba\u2019s Pride<\/em>, The Lion King 1 \u00bd<\/em>, and the animated TV show The Lion Guard<\/em>. Except instead of being cheaply thrown together for young audiences, it was directed by Academy Award winner Barry Jenkins (Moonlight<\/em>, The Underground Railroad<\/em>), with a script from Catch Me If You Can<\/em> screenwriter Jeff Nathanson, and music from Lin-Manuel Miranda.<\/strong><\/p>\n

In other words, the string of Lion King<\/em> sequels might lead people to think that this latest one could be treated like the previous ones, being presented DTV. The celebrity talent involved, however, kindled enough interest to lure audiences into theaters and make Mufasa<\/em> a hit.<\/p>\n

Despite claims to the contrary, lines between various exhibition sites remain strong. DTV content and theatrical releases are seemingly different cultural categories that, in turn, invite different reading strategies. As the above quote suggests, success is, in part, based on expectations, and expectations tend to be tied directly to the site of the exhibition. As media conglomerates consolidate and organize transmedia franchises, they must\u202fnegotiate the utility and corporate value of each exhibition site at their disposal. The task for media producers over the next few years is to calculate the financial value of these cultural categories and use that to calibrate the production costs of their various franchise proliferations. In short, this difference in cultural capital between these two exhibition sites constitutes a difference in industrial strategy as corporations seek to exploit and profit from their various properties in myriad ways. How this shakes out will have lasting effects on the future of film and television creation for decades.<\/p>\n

Studios are grappling with these questions of medium-specificity, appropriate exhibition, and franchise management in real-time. New rules are being forged that will shape the future of distribution. As we see it, streaming is unlikely to collapse theatrical and television into a single system but instead offer a hybrid exhibition site that seems to fill the role of both commercial television and the direct-to-video market.<\/p>\n

What complicates streaming currently is that it has traditionally been subscriber-supported and therefore followed a premium cable, rather than a commercial television, model of production (see Amanda D. Lotz<\/a> for more on this distinction). Unlike the commercial television or direct-to-video route, where the value for those exhibition options was tied to their lower production costs, streaming tends to demand a similar quality production to film since it\u2019s not really competing with broadcast television. Instead its rival is seemingly premium cable programming like Game of Thrones<\/em>. Therefore, it\u2019s very expensive, sometimes more expensive<\/a> than film production.<\/p>\n

Streaming tends to look for a larger audience and is not aimed at exploiting as much as expanding<\/em> a story world as a franchise. This strategy may be something that fans of that particular story world want, but a general audience would rather watch individual stories than dive into an elaborate franchise saga. Streaming shows also tend not to consistently generate the same cultural impact as a theatrical release (is anyone talking about The Skeleton Crew<\/em>?). In other words, as it exists, streaming offers the worst of all worlds for media conglomerates looking to exploit their intellectual properties in ways that generate revenue and help the brand. Shows are expensive to produce, they can generate bad press and harm the brand, but they have very little potential to generate large revenues.<\/p>\n

We would argue that this is likely why Moana: The Series<\/em> was reworked into Moana 2<\/em> and prepared for a theatrical run. Though the budget has not been officially revealed, based on industry sources<\/a>, the budget was likely close to the $150 million budget of the first movie. In other words, it\u2019s not because the story got \u201ctoo big,\u201d but because the budget was too big to justify it being tossed into the increasingly large pile of disposable Disney+ content.<\/p>\n

Moana 2<\/em> is part of a clear trend. In 2023 The Mandalorian<\/em>\u2019s final season was transitioned from a Disney+ series to the upcoming theatrical release, The Mandalorian and Grogu <\/em>(2026). Inside Out 2<\/em> (2024) enjoyed a successful box office run as a traditional Pixar theatrical release. A few months later, after the movie hit streaming services, the short, animated spin-off series Dream Productions<\/em> (2024) debuted on Disney+. The four-episode limited series was produced on a severely reduced budget<\/a> concurrently with the feature film production. However, mid-production Disney cut the episode order from seven to four.<\/a>\u00a0<\/u><\/p>\n

When Moana: The Series<\/em> was announced in 2020, Disney also announced a Tiana<\/em> musical series based on the Princess and The Frog <\/em>(2009). Though it was set to be released in 2023, it\u2019s still in development<\/a> \u2013 perhaps preparing to shift into a feature film. Disney has also systematically canceled or prepared to phase out many of its more expensive shows, even popular ones. Shows such as Ahsoka<\/em><\/a>, Andor<\/em>,<\/a> and The Acolyte<\/em><\/a> are all being canceled after one or two seasons. This suggests that Moana 2<\/em> did not evolve on a whim, but rather as part of a broader systematic move away from expensive Disney+ series and towards high-profile theatrical content. As Disney builds its advertising infrastructure, we\u2019ll likely see Disney+ pursue things like Young Jedi Adventures<\/em><\/a> (2023): franchise spin-offs aimed at families and children that are relatively cheap to produce and have syndication potential.<\/p>\n

Yet Moana 2<\/em> also highlights a unique value of streaming over other forms of exhibition: data. Moana<\/em> (2016) was the most streamed movie<\/a> of 2023. Because of this, Disney knew that Moana<\/em> (2016) was popular among their fanbase. This likely gave Iger and others some confidence that even without the A-list creative talent behind the scenes, the property alone could carry a sequel to a box office win, which in turn results in positive press and better stock performance<\/a>. Similarly, the popularity of The Mandalorian<\/em> (2019 -) as the second most streamed<\/a> series on Disney+, behind only The Simpsons<\/em>, likely factored into the choice to greenlight The Mandalorian and Grogu <\/em>(2026) for theatrical release. We would likewise guess that the greenlighting of Frozen 3<\/em> and Zootopia 2<\/em> was likely less about some burning creative need to expand those stories and more about promising Disney+ data.<\/p>\n

The decision to release the Moana<\/em> sequel in theaters also reflects the obvious point that theatrical movies generate a higher profile than DTV series. Once they end their theatrical runs and are offered on streaming services, the desire to see them may lead to new subscribers.<\/p>\n

Ultimately, what we see is not the erasure of one form of exhibition in favor of streaming, or competition between theaters, television, and streaming services, but the formation of a nascent symbiosis between these sites, as media conglomerates consider their place within each corporate enterprise.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

Our gratitude to Matt St. John for inspiring and improving this piece.<\/p>\n

We would also like to thank Kristin for her edits and insights on contemporary animation.<\/p>\n

Relevant to this discussion is a newly filed lawsuit suing Disney for copyright infringement over the Moana <\/em>franchise. Entertainment Weekly<\/em> broke this news<\/a> on January 12, and it goes without saying that we will follow this case as it proceeds.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

I dimly remember hearing in late 2020 that the sequel to Moana (2016) was going to be Moana: The Series, streaming on Disney+ rather than a theatrical feature. David and I liked Moana very much, but in those of Covid and non-theater-going, it seemed a minor thing. A series wasn’t appealing, and we could just […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,6,40,280],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-50867","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-animation","category-film-industry","category-hollywood-the-business","category-streaming"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/50867","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=50867"}],"version-history":[{"count":26,"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/50867\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":50903,"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/50867\/revisions\/50903"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=50867"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=50867"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=50867"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}