This summer’s movie season is now in full swing, and turnout is strong. Franchise films are facing a decline in dominance, but still hold a significant portion of the box office. In addition, original hits have proven that fresh storytelling can still break through.

Of course, challenges are there. With streaming habits, changing audience expectations, and the unpredictability of box office trends, studios are being kept on their toes. But one thing has remained constant: Pixar’s tentpole releases reliably soar past the billion-dollar mark.

Or so we thought.

Just before the pandemic, Pixar crossed a billion with Toy Story 4, one year after crushing it with Incredibles 2. Now, after a string of Disney+ releases, they’ve taken another big swing with the Toy Story spinoff Lightyear. 

Then, bullish projections had Lightyear nearing a nine-figure opening weekend and cruising to $500m from there. Instead, the family-friendly tentpole opened second, failing to surpass a plummeting Jurassic World Dominion.

Why did Lightyear flop?

You probably seen the headline: Lightyear bombs. Disappointing on its face, but the ramifications go far beyond the potential for a Woody’s Roundup spinoff film.

The past couple Pixar films (Soul, Luca, Turning Red) released exclusively on Disney+. Many maligned the shafting of these exciting animated films. It’s especially upsetting for Turning Red, which could’ve easily been one of 2022’s runaway box office hits.

Lightyear is the test. A new direction for Pixar’s biggest franchise. The most means-tested Pixar film gets the theatrical boost, and if it does well, the other movies follow. For this reason, it is a big deal that Lightyear flopped. So, what happened?

If you frequent Facebook, you’ve no doubt seen the “get woke go broke” narrative. A gay kiss, which was removed from the film and added back after Disney’s March “Don’t Say Gay” controversy, has gotten the film banned in several countries. Domestic concern trolls like Ben Shapiro, enamored by Saudi Arabia’s officially-sanctioned bigotry, ratcheted up scare pieces on the film in the past week.

In today’s new heights of parental hysteria, it wouldn’t surprise me if a few thousand families stayed home due to right-wing fearmongering. Still, history doesn’t really support the notion that this would have a substantial impact on box office. Multiverse of Madness made big bank with equally-major LGBTQ+ characters. If anything, it could be said that these films’ lack of a Chinese release upsets their box office returns, but that doesn’t explain a poor opening weekend.

Still others have pointed to the shafting of Tim Allen, replaced in the role of Buzz by Chris Evans. Allen’s performance in the Toy Story movies is iconic and truly fantastic. Still, I question the notion that $30 million went missing from beleaguered Tim Allen fans.

The other explanation? Marketing. Lightyear got off on the wrong foot with an unclear premise. Evans’ ill-fated explanation tweet only made matters worse. Is this about a real Buzz Lightyear in the Toy Story universe?

One could argue that even today, Disney hasn’t totally gotten their story straight. The movie itself explains that this is the movie that the Buzz Lightyear toy comes from. An ‘80s sci-fi movie that Andy saw. In theaters. In 1995. That’s styled like a 2022 blockbuster. You can see how people got lost.

On the other hand, we might just be asking the wrong question.

Did Lightyear flop?

Of course, it’s too early to say definitively if Lightyear is a flop. That’s not what I’m arguing here.

We’re dealing with a case of Hollywood math, the same system by which Suicide Squad’s $750m profit is considered a dismal failure. Disney had the wrong idea about this movie as soon as they pushed it for a tentpole opening.

Lightyear’s $50m opening puts it in league with Coco and Cars 3, solidly ahead of true Pixar flops like The Good Dinosaur and Onward. It’s the highest opening for an animated film since Frozen II. With a COVID handicap still in play, that’s impressive.

Pixar’s mistake was to angle for a major franchise opening. They applied a post-pandemic framework to the nine-figure openings of Toy Story 4 and Finding Dory. They thought, reasonably enough, that parents would pay big money to turn out for a new, fresh installment in the beloved Toy Story franchise.

Herein lies the real problem. Lightyear is not, in any meaningful sense, a Toy Story movie. It has name recognition, which Hollywood has come to treat as a golden rule over the past two decades. But it follows a completely different character, played by a completely different actor, in a completely different world.

Like I said earlier, Tim Allen’s Buzz Lightyear is truly great. But the character is only a toy with an inflated ego, being constantly hit in the face by reality like Sideshow Bob stepping on infinite rakes. So much as wondering about “the real Buzz Lightyear” misses the point of the character.

Lightyear may marginally be a victim of conservative backlash, or poor promotion, or even COVID woes. But fundamentally, it’s a victim of its own premise.

What happens now?

Pixar’s next film, Elemental, is already slated for a theatrical release next summer. Barring a huge COVID flare-up or other societal collapse, they probably won’t go back on that. Down the line, other Pixar flicks in development may be looking at streaming releases if Disney has their way.

If anything, The Bad Guys’ recent success proves feature animation is doing fine. In a few weeks, the new Minions movie will likely confirm that. November’s Strange World will tell us if Disney’s animation department has any sort of long-term problem.

I can’t really recommend that you see Lightyear—in fairness, I haven’t seen it myself. If you want variety at the movies, the answer isn’t to support whatever Disney puts out. Live a little and see something out of your comfort zone. If Lightyear’s fate is already sealed, at least it won’t be at the expense of film as a whole.

We’ve all seen it before: the tale of the gauzy self-made business entrepreneur swept into fame and wealth, touting a name for themselves, only for it all to come crashing down suddenly. In their joyride, the protagonist figure realizes that beneath the world of dizzy glitters, there’s a saddened space of existence reality awaiting, of gaping shadows where life isn’t as pleasing as it seems to be. 

Experiencing poverty is, without a doubt, a challenging feat in itself. Being born into it, experiencing success, fame, then losing it all and falling back into poverty is what must be especially difficult. Where the majority see this cliche in fiction or television, some are unfortunate enough to experience it firsthand.

This is the story of Wally Amos, of the Famous Amos fame.

Who is “Famous” Amos?

When it comes to feelings about Famous Amos, I imagine people typically fall into one of three groups:

The first group—being made up of mostly young people (probably; I’ve no data)— has zero knowledge of the brand at all. If the name doesn’t conjure visions of second-rate vending machine options (D4 at best), then you’re likely in this group. 

The second group knows of Famous Amos and is familiar with its underwhelming status as a dollar store checkout counter snack food. Reasonable.

But the third group has a different view of the matter. A much more romantic take on the treat. Because this group remembers Famous Amos as a mouthwatering gourmet delicacy. A top-shelf cookie purveyor with an outspoken, charismatic owner in Wally Amos.

Why such a harsh disparity? How can a company less than 50 years old have such contradicting reputations among different generations?

There was a time, just a few decades ago, when Amos was a household name. A successful brand with big-name celebrity investors, upscale distribution, and a first-year total sales revenue of $300,000. 

But by the mid-80s, the brand was hemorrhaging money. Amos would lose his house and eventually sell a majority stake of the company. Many people were left to wonder: How did one of the most successful snack companies of the last decade so quickly decay into financial shambles?

How did Amos find himself on the butt-end of a bad break? 

These are interesting questions, and sure to be answered. But first, it’s worth understanding Famous Amos’ rise to popularity, understanding what made this gourmet cookie company so successful, so, well— I’m not gonna say it, I am not going to—famous.

Wally Amos’ Rise to Fame

Wally Amos came from a classically humble upbringing, born in 1936 in Tallahassee, Florida, to poor, illiterate parents. At age 12, he moved to New York to live with his Aunt Della. It was here that he learned of the famous recipe. (More on this in a bit.)

Amos, who dropped out of high school, would receive his G.E.D. after joining the Air Force. Returning to New York as a mature, educated man, he found work in the William Morris Agency, a Hollywood-based talent agency once considered “the best in show business.” 

He began in the mailroom, eventually working his way up to becoming the first black talent agent in the entertainment industry. 

This was more than just a side-quest for an aspiring baker; Amos now headed the rock’n’roll department at William Morris, where he signed Simon and Garfunkel and worked with Motown legends like Diana Ross, Sam Cooke, and Dionne Warwick. 

It was only after growing disillusioned with the industry that Amos sought refuge in his aunt’s baking once more. 

Wally’s son, Shawn Amos, said:

“Cookies were a hobby to relieve stress.”

It wasn’t long before the cookies took the main stage. 

Amos told The New York Times in 1975:

“I’d go to meetings with the record company or movie people and bring along some cookies, and pretty soon everybody was asking for them.”

Amos’s connection with the entertainment business helped his business aspirations tremendously. He received significant contributions from industry stars Marvin Gaye and Helen Reddy, who gave Amos $25,000 for his new venture. 

In 1975, Amos launched his first brick-and-mortar location. 7181 Sunset Blvd. in Los Angeles. 

And it was a big deal. The grand opening was a star-studded gala attended by 1,500 people. 

Success was sudden. After selling $300,000 worth of cookies in its first year, the brand continued to climb in popularity. By 1982, Famous Amos was making $12 million in yearly revenue. 

Famous Amos’s success was the result of exploiting a hole in the market. In the mid-70s, the grocery store shelves were loaded with preservative-dependent snack options. Amos carved out a lucrative niche by marketing the product as a gourmet, zero-preservative, craft-made cookie. A risk well rewarded.

From “What’s Going On?” to “What’s Going On???”

With any great market advancement, a plethora of eager competitors emerge. And shortly after arriving on the scene, Famous Amos was met with rival brands like Mrs. Fields, and new, upmarket product lines from Nabisco and Duncan Hines. 

Combining these market competitors and Amos’s inability to keep up with his success led to the first cracks in the business. By 1985, Famous Amos reported a $300,000 loss on sales of $10 million.

Later that year, Amos officially gave up the reigns of his company, selling a majority stake to Bass Brothers Enterprises for $1.1 million.

Two years later, the new owners upended the recipe entirely, adding preservatives and shelf-stable ingredients. Famous Amos was rebranding as an affordable brand. It wasn’t entirely unexpected; such mission-statement-defying practices are common for newly bought companies, but the decision prompted original owner Wally Amos to depart. 

In 1992, President Baking Company bought Famous Amos for $61 million—more than 55 times what Wally Amos sold his controlling stake for just a few years earlier. 

Amos wasn’t through with the cookie business, however. Later in 1992, he launched his new venture…

And was promptly sued. 

Turns out: the latest Amos product— Wally Amos Presents Hazelnut Cookies— stood in direct violation of the contract he had signed years prior when selling his first business. The one that expressly prohibited Amos from using his own name and likeness in the selling of any product.

Undeterred, he changed the name of his company, operating instead as Uncle Nonamé. Boldness had treated him well in the past— and I think it’s an undeniably ballsy way to approach being sued over your own identity— but the market operates in mysterious ways. In 1996, Uncle Nonamé filed for bankruptcy. 

What Became of Wally Amos?

By 1999, Amos was in talks with Keebler, the new owner of Famous Amos. An agreement had been reached: Wally Amos would become a paid spokesperson for the brand under the condition that they craft the recipe closer to the original. 

And it feels like a solid ending to the story. The sweet embrace of a father and son after a long, arduous journey, complete with lawsuits, bankruptcies, and foreclosure. Ending up together would be fitting— if a bit too good to be true.

“It was bittersweet,”

says his son, Shawn Amos.

“He was happy to be back in the center of the brand he started, but he also had a hard time accepting the fact that at the end of the day, he was just a paid spokesperson.”

The feeling of being alienated from one’s own brainchild eventually led to a short-lived reunion between Amos and the brand that bears his name. 

After leaving once and for all, Amos pivoted to making muffins with Uncle Wally’s Muffin Co., opening a bake shop in Hawai’i.

Amos wrote multiple books about his experience over the years, including Power In You, Man With No Name: Turn Lemons into Lemonade, and The Famous Amos Story: The Face That Launched 1,000 Chips. He has also been a vigorous advocate for literacy and was granted a National Literacy Honors Award by President George H.W. Bush.

At age 80, Amos appeared on the hit television show, Shark Tank, pitching another new business, “The Cookie Kahuna”. The business ultimately failed.

In 2017, he launched a GoFundMe, announcing he was struggling to pay for food, gas, and rent.

No longer famous, Wally Amos continues on with his baking and entrepreneurial spirit. His life is a statement of hard work and resilience, but also a cautionary tale about success, hubris, and the risks we make along the way.

Are you tired of keeping up with long email chains or trying to sync everyone in the team for a live call? If you answered yes, then Loom could be an efficient tool for you. In this Loom review, we’ll unpack how you can use Loom to explain complex ideas, give feedback, or walk someone through a task without going on a live call.

We’ll also explore its standout features, use cases, pricing plans, and how it compares to Zoom so you can decide if it fits your team’s workflow.

What is Loom?

Loom is a video messaging app that lets users record and share video messages with teammates and clients. Using Loom, you can record your camera, microphone, and desktop screen at the same time. 

According to online Loom review, this is especially useful for individuals to create tutorials, demonstrations, and presentations, as well as to share feedback. 

Loom users can choose to record with the Loom Chrome extension, the desktop app, as well as the iOS and Android apps. 

Some of Loom’s clients include Brex, Intercom, Postclick, and more. 

Loom Features

Loom has various features that allow it to seamlessly integrate into a company’s existing workflows. 

Users can play Loom download videos within platforms like:

• Slack
• Jira
• Confluence
• Github

Why does this matter? Users will no longer be led to an external link, increasing their productivity by playing feedback videos within the platform. 

Next, Loom video has an AI suite that can help teams work more efficiently. Using AI, the tool can:

• Automatically generate meeting notes and recaps, among other things
• Instantly create chapters in your videos, as well as CTAs and tasks
• Create text transcription and generate closed captions

To refine your videos further, Loom has features that can remove filler words and silence in a video.

Besides this, Loom also has a video-to-text feature. This is especially useful for asynchronous teams that need help with logging a bug issue, documenting a process, or performing a code review. 

Loom Pricing

Loom pricing is generally straightforward. If you want to know if Loom is free, yes, it does have a free tier. 

It has a free Starter plan for users who want to try out the app’s key features. It can accommodate up to 50 Workspace users, who are each entitled to up to 25 videos with a five-minute length cap. 

Next, the Business plan is for teams that want unlimited videos and basic editing. It costs $15 per user per month if billed annually. Here, you can have unlimited members get basic waveform editing, remove the Loom Branding, and more. 

According to Loom review, their most popular plan is the Business + AI plan, where teams can get advanced editing and access their AI suite. This plan costs $20 per user per month if billed annually. 

Their premium plan is the Enterprise plan, which is best for companies that want to control and securely manage video content for the organization. If you’re wondering, “Is Loom safe to use?” This plan has advanced security and content privacy features as well as admin insights. Teams need to contact Loom’s sales team first to get a price quote. 

Finally, Loom has a discount plan for educators as part of the Atlassian Education Program. 

Use Case Breakdown

Here are a few Loom use cases:

• Loom review can be especially helpful for tech teams, as it can be used to narrate a bug issue. When an issue occurs, developers or testers can simply record the issue with Loom and report the issue to the concerned developers. It saves time and increases the turnaround time for bug fixes. 
• Hiring teams and internal teams can also use Loom to document an internal process for onboarding purposes. Apart from this, it can also be used by customer-facing teams to create user guides on a platform or a new product feature. 
• Sales teams can also use Loom to reach out to prospective clients. When cold emails are not friendly enough, sales teams can create personalized video content through Loom and stand out.  
• Taking too long to get feedback from all stakeholders? Loom is great for product design teams to get asynchronous feedback from a global executive team. It’s great for instances where it’s difficult to get stakeholders in one meeting. 
• Finally, Loom is great for educators and academics who want to create videos for remote classes. 

Loom vs. Zoom

While their names sound the same, Loom and Zoom have different fundamental use cases. In terms of Loom review, Loom is best used to record and send videos, which can be used for demos, tutorials, and feedback. In terms of use cases, Loom is more catered to asynchronous communication and screen recordings. 

Meanwhile, Zoom is best used for hosting live meetings and large conferences. It has features like breakout rooms and virtual backgrounds. While you can use Zoom to record videos yourself, Loom is more optimized to share video links with teammates and clients. 

Final Thoughts: Who Will Get the Most Out of Loom?

Loom is best for companies that need videos for their day-to-day work communication. Whether for external or internal communication, it is great for clients who work asynchronously. In fact, most of their clients include those in the tech and product space. 

Their product is useful for tech, sales, and product design teams that need to align with cross-functional teams. Loom is also best for companies that want to tighten their internal feedback loop, demonstrate processes, and get quick updates. 

Educators, coaches, and course creators can also benefit from Loom’s features. The platform makes it easy to create clear, engaging instructional videos that students or clients can watch at their own pace. With features like closed captioning, video chapters, and transcription, Loom helps streamline learning and knowledge sharing.

Finally, to sum up this Loom review, freelancers and consultants who want to build stronger relationships with clients may also find Loom useful. Just like gadgets that boost team connectivity, like the Deeper Connect Pico, the global workforce can benefit a lot from Loom. Personalized video updates, walkthroughs, or proposals can set them apart, adding a human touch to digital communication that static emails or text-based reports often lack.