Dana Walden Addresses the Future of ‘Jimmy Kimmel Live!’ and ‘Moana’’s Box-Office Failure
Disney president Dana Walden discusses the outlook for ABC’s ‘Jimmy Kimmel Live!’ while also addressing the disappointing theatrical performance of the live-action ‘Moana.’
Disney president Dana Walden has offered a look at two very different questions facing the company: what comes next for ABC’s Jimmy Kimmel Live!, and why the live-action version of Moana failed to meet expectations at the box office.
The subjects sit on opposite sides of Disney’s entertainment business. One concerns the future of a long-running late-night television program and its place on a broadcast network. The other involves a major film release built around a familiar Disney property. Together, they show how closely the company’s television and film decisions are being watched as Disney evaluates the strength of its brands, the habits of audiences and the performance of established franchises.
Walden’s comments, as reported by Variety, focus on the direction of Jimmy Kimmel Live! at ABC and the circumstances surrounding the disappointing result for the live-action Moana. The discussion is significant because both projects are tied to recognizable names, but recognition alone does not guarantee a dependable audience.
The future of Jimmy Kimmel Live!
Jimmy Kimmel Live! remains part of ABC’s late-night identity, making any conversation about its future important to the network’s broader programming strategy. Walden addressed what lies ahead for the show, placing attention on whether the program will continue to occupy its current role and how ABC views its value.
The source material does not provide a detailed list of programming changes, a new schedule or a specific long-term agreement. It does, however, establish that Walden discussed the show’s future directly. That makes the central issue less about a single episode or short-term broadcast decision and more about the position the series holds within ABC’s plans.
Late-night television has changed considerably as viewers divide their attention among broadcast networks, cable channels, streaming services and online video. A traditional late-night show now competes not only with programs airing at the same time, but also with clips and complete segments that circulate after the original broadcast. That wider environment gives a series more ways to reach viewers, while also making the value of a conventional nightly schedule more complicated to measure.
For ABC, Jimmy Kimmel Live! represents both a television program and a familiar public voice. Its future can therefore affect the network’s nightly lineup, its relationship with viewers and the way it presents entertainment and current-affairs conversation. Walden’s remarks put the show in the context of an ongoing decision about how a broadcast network should use established programming in a changing media market.
The available summary does not say that the show is ending, moving or receiving a specific renewal. It also does not identify a replacement or describe a confirmed change to its format. Those details should not be assumed. What is clear is that Disney’s leadership is considering the program’s place at ABC and speaking publicly about that consideration.
That distinction matters. A discussion of a show’s future is not automatically an announcement of cancellation or renewal. It can reflect a broader review of a program’s performance, audience, creative direction and importance to the network. In this case, Walden’s comments invite attention to the question without, in the supplied material, resolving every detail.
For viewers, the immediate takeaway is that Jimmy Kimmel Live! continues to be an important subject in ABC’s planning. Until Disney or ABC provides more specific information, the most reliable conclusion is that the company is evaluating the show’s continuing role rather than that a particular outcome has already been confirmed.
Why the live-action Moana struggled
Walden also discussed the disappointing box-office performance of the live-action Moana. The film carried the name of a well-known Disney property, which made its result especially notable. A familiar title can attract attention before release, but the theatrical response still depends on how audiences react to the specific version presented to them.
The source summary identifies Walden’s remarks as an explanation of why the film “bombed,” but it does not provide the individual reasons she gave. As a result, it would be misleading to assign a particular cause to the film’s performance. The article can report that Disney’s president addressed the setback, but it cannot responsibly turn an unspecified explanation into a confirmed claim about marketing, reviews, timing, competition, production or audience interest.
That limitation is important because box-office disappointment is rarely a simple story. A film’s performance may be influenced by several factors at once, including the strength of the underlying brand, the audience’s appetite for another version of a familiar story, the timing of its release and the way the film is positioned for moviegoers. None of those factors should be presented as the reason for Moana’s result unless the source specifically supports it.
The live-action project also illustrates a broader challenge for studios. When a company revisits a successful animated film, it must offer viewers a reason to see the new version while preserving the qualities that made the original meaningful. Familiarity can create an opening weekend audience, but it can also create high expectations. People who already know a story may judge a remake or adaptation against memories of the earlier film, making the new release’s identity especially important.
In the case of Moana, the title itself carries expectations because it is already recognized by audiences. Walden’s decision to discuss the film’s failure suggests that Disney is examining more than the result of one release. The company is also confronting the limits of relying on recognizable intellectual property when a new production does not connect strongly enough with moviegoers.
Still, the available information does not establish that the film’s performance has changed Disney’s entire approach to live-action adaptations. Nor does it show that the company has abandoned the strategy of revisiting animated properties. Such conclusions would go beyond what Walden’s comments, as summarized, support. The confirmed point is narrower: she spoke about why this particular live-action Moana release fell short.
Two decisions, one larger Disney conversation
The discussion of ABC’s late-night programming and the disappointing film performance may appear unrelated, yet both involve the management of established entertainment brands. Disney must decide how much weight to give names that already have public recognition and how to respond when a familiar property does not deliver the expected result.
For television, the question is how an existing program fits into the future of a broadcast network. For film, the question is how an established story can be presented in a way that persuades audiences to buy a ticket. In both cases, the company must weigh familiarity against changing viewer behavior. A recognized name can open the door, but it does not determine whether people stay engaged.
Walden’s comments also underline the difference between a brand’s cultural visibility and its commercial performance. Jimmy Kimmel Live! has a recognizable title and a defined place in ABC’s schedule, but that does not eliminate the need to consider its future. Likewise, Moana is a known Disney property, but that recognition did not prevent the live-action film from struggling theatrically.
That contrast may be especially relevant as entertainment companies manage audiences across multiple platforms. A television program can reach viewers through its original broadcast and through material that travels online. A film, meanwhile, still faces the immediate test of whether audiences choose to see it in theaters. The same brand may perform differently depending on the format, release strategy and expectations surrounding it.
What remains unanswered
Walden’s remarks provide a starting point, not a complete road map. The supplied report does not identify a final decision about the future of Jimmy Kimmel Live!, and it does not offer a detailed account of every factor behind the live-action Moana’s box-office result. Additional announcements from Disney or ABC would be needed to clarify any changes involving the late-night show.
For the film, further explanation would be required to determine whether Disney sees the outcome as an isolated disappointment or as evidence of a larger problem with a particular kind of adaptation. Without that information, it is best to avoid treating one result as proof of a permanent shift in the company’s film strategy.
The remarks are nevertheless revealing because they show a senior Disney executive engaging with difficult questions rather than discussing only successful projects. The future of a major ABC program and the failure of a high-profile film both require the company to examine how audiences make choices. In each case, the challenge is not simply finding a recognizable name. It is turning that name into programming or a theatrical experience that people still want.
For now, viewers can take away two clear points. Disney is considering the future of Jimmy Kimmel Live! at ABC, and Dana Walden has addressed the disappointing performance of the live-action Moana. The precise next steps for the television show and the full explanation for the film’s box-office result remain matters to watch as the company continues to shape its entertainment slate.