But this year, the long-reigning titan has shown cracks as 4 of its biggest releases have struggled in theaters.

There was the dispiriting release of “Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania,” a rare Marvel movie to likely lose tens of millions in its theatrical run; “The Little Mermaid,” a remake of the 1989 animated classic that fell drastically short of expectations; “Elemental,” an original story that tried and failed to recapture Pixar’s magic; and most recently “Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny,” a nearly $300 million investment in one of cinemas’ most venerable franchises, which no longer has the same hold on today’s audiences.

These films seemed like they had all of the makings of huge hits, but somehow the Disney sparkle was lacking this time.

“Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3” looks like it’ll be the studio’s biggest earner of the year with $835 million. It’s the first time since 2014 (except for the pandemic-stricken years of 2020 and 2021) that Disney won’t have a movie that reaches $1 billion. It also marks a shift from 2022, which saw the studio release not only hits like “Black Panther: Wakanda Forever” and “Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness,” but also “Avatar: The Way of Water,” the third-highest grossing film in history.

Disney still far outranks the competition in terms of market share in 2023, commanding 37% of the industry’s revenues (Universal is close behind at 31%). But ticket sales for the films it has produced have been more Earth-bound, especially compared to the last pre-COVID year, when Disney fielded a record seven movies that crossed the billion-dollar mark in 2019.

Reviews for recent releases haven’t been standout, with critics being scathing about “Quantumania” and questioning the fifth “Indy” adventure.

The problem is that getting these costs under control will take time. Major movies take at least three to four years to develop, produce and distribute — a lifetime in a fast-changing industry. Even if Disney is serious about tightening its belt, it may not make a noticeable difference until 2026 or beyond.

“It takes a long time for a big ship like Disney to change course,” says Paul Verna, principal analyst at Insider Intelligence.

“If you cut costs, do you degrade the quality of the product?” says Brandon Nispel, an equity research analyst with KeyBanc Capital Markets. “If you spend less, do people like the movies you are making less? And how much and how fast can you start cutting?”

The turn in fortunes isn’t only due to market conditions, but also of creative shortfalls and outsized attention on streaming.

Disney’s banner year in 2019, with the releases of “Avengers: Endgame,” “The Lion King,” “Frozen II” and more, came before Disney+ launched and squashed the need for repeat viewings in theaters.

With “Endgame,” people went to the movies three, four, even five times to watch the epic blockbuster that bid adieu to some of Marvel’s biggest heroes. Now, there’s less need to make multiple trips to the multiplex. Moviegoers can wait months (or less) for film to land on streaming.

“People have become conditioned to expect that things will quickly appear on Disney+,” says Neil Macker, senior equity analyst for Morningstar Research Services. “The theatrical movie business has been in decline and the pandemic accelerated that.”

“Star Wars,” too, has lost its luster in theaters as the franchise set in a galaxy far, far away has found repeated success on Disney+ with series like “The Mandalorian” and “Andor.” But following the 2019 release of “The Rise of Skywalker,” Lucasfilm’s efforts to get another trilogy off the ground have been strained.

Disney has planted three “Star Wars” films on the release in 2026 and 2027, but hasn’t revealed any details about those movies.

“I’ll believe there’s a new ‘Star Wars’ movie when I’m seated in the theater and seeing the opening crawl,” says Josh Spiegel, a freelance film critic who specializes in Disney. “There have been so many false starts.”

As sprawling media conglomerate, Disney is facing issues on all fronts. Bob Iger, who returned as CEO after brief hiatus and displaced his successor Bob Chapek, is battling Wall Street’s unrest over the unprofitability of Disney+, concerns that Disney’s parks business may have alienated customers with its higher prices, and a rise in cord cutting that’s imperiling its cable properties like ESPN. These are all doing more to depress Disney’s share price (which is down nearly 7% year-over-year) than the struggles with its latest movies.

“Streaming was positioned as the greatest business ever, and it didn’t live up to the hype,” says Nispel. “Disney’s losing more money than people thought it would, and the market became saturated more quickly than people expected. At the same time, the ground is shifting under linear TV and the parks business that had been a cash cow hasn’t fully recovered from the pandemic. Those are far bigger problems.”

Disney’s film business has long been an important stabilizing force, with the studio dwarfing the competition. And there’s been a very successful formula that Disney has deployed — not so much leaning into nostalgia as diving in head first — which may no longer be as effective. Live-action remakes of classics such as “Aladdin,” “Beauty and the Beast” and “The Jungle Book” were theatrical goldmines, even as those films were criticized by some as shot-for-shot remakes of the originals. At that time, the Disney name alone was enough to cut the noise in a crowded market. But the lackluster global turnout for “The Little Mermaid” is a sign that brand familiarity is no longer the ticket to get people to go to theaters. And the failure of the latest “Ant-Man” indicates the studio may need to be more judicious in the sequels it decides to back. That’s an issue because the studio has found less success in launching new original franchises, other than “Frozen.”

“Disney desperately needs to create something new,” Spiegel says. “It does a good job at cannibalizing itself. They remake their movies and echo what they’ve done in the past. At a certain point, there won’t be a whole lot for them to echo.”

“They may not make it at the box office, but Disney will make up for it in merchandise sales and the longevity of the property,” says Bock. “That’s a lot different than Paramount or Sony, who needs to make all their money back at the box office.”