The Disney Thread | Happy 90th to Donald Duck!

[MysteryMovieMogul]

23 minutes ago, AniNate said:

Point remains that Disney is being targeted just because they're Disney and everyone knows them. People may claim they hate them in polls or on social media, but they still buy their toys and plushies for their kids and go to the parks. It's empty words and that was evidenced as much by the last quarterly earnings.

100%

 

And I understand why Disney didn't take their chances with Nimona. As I said on my reply above, Netflix was hoping the film would do well, just off the basis that Disney dumped the film. But the thing is, as soon as Disney dumped it, a ton of people stopped caring about the film anymore because they were never interested in it, just the narrative that Disney was killing a Queer film.

[PlatnumRoyce]

1 hour ago, cannastop said:

Well I think that's mostly because very few people watched Nimona at all.

A lot of people saw Mitchells and the Machines without really a peep from conservative media. Disney really defined themselves as the face of changing children's entertainment content in a way that really simply part of a long term trend. 

 

I don't think you can undersell the importance of Disney's specific execution here. They got hit on all sides due to their initial attempt  to have it both ways and then served themselves up as a piece of red meat to a guy with a 10-20% chance of becoming president at the time the chance to define himself in opposition to Disney.

 

But this getting into weeds of how I see an old political controversy.

 

1 hour ago, cannastop said:

OK so where do you get that 70% number from,

Don't take 70% too literally but it's some recollections of polling in regards to FL-Disney fight. Essentially the terms of the fight were picked to unify GOP and split Democrats. See especially (as that poll indicates) the fact that it was ultimately over elementary school content versus middle/high school. Basically the trap is the distinction between debates about what should be taught to second graders versus "being banned from saying gay." Basically the framing of the issue got the opponents of the bill defined as sort of anti-status quo (because default mental image is these topics never organically coming up in elementary school) despite the bill being a change in the status quo. 

 

tl;dr if an "obvious-future-presidential-candidate" wants to pick a specific fight, it's probably not in your best interest to join in. There's likely a reason this specific ground was selected. Look at how Bob Iger describes the culture war/value clash stuff. He frames those debates in a vastly different way and reflects the grounds that are much more favorable towards Disney litigating such issues. 

 

 

 

Quote

I'm actually a little surprised that the negative opinion on Disney from Conservatives is ONLY 30%. Though I don't know what specific issue you're talking about.

OTOH, it's just hard to tell without knowing the baselines including no opinion stuff. downside of not actually having accessed to paywalled poll. But yeah, you could tell a story that assumes a significantly higher negative opinion baseline. On the other hand, we also know there isn't anything like a mega-boycott of Disney by conservative parents so a 67% negative score would imply lots of people have negative opinions without changing habits. 

Edited February 21 by PlatnumRoyce

[MysteryMovieMogul]

15 minutes ago, PlatnumRoyce said:

A lot of people saw Mitchells and the Machines without really a peep from conservative media

The Queer representation in that film was a nothing burger. Even less representation than Lightyear, which at least was explicitly Gay.

[Porthos]

I hesitate to even mention this, but I think people forget just how much Disney's hands were forced by their own employees in the "public spat with Gov. DeSantis".  

 

If people recall,  originally Disney was getting blasted for not taking a stance in the odious (and yes I stand by that framing and I don't care who disagrees) legislation that was making its way through the FL legislature.  There was tremendous internal pressure to, again with the scare quotes, "pick that fight".  Unsustainable pressure, in fact.  Something was gonna give sooner or later.

 

The problem for Disney brass is that when it did decide to engage, it was in a pretty half-hearted way against folks who chew up and spit out half measures for breakfast.  Or, to put it more colloquially, Disney brought a knife to a gun fight.  

 

Compounding that, they had the bad luck timing wise that much of their upcoming Marvel films were... let's be kind and say "uneven" and Lightyear was just a big fat barrel of "why".  If Disney was firing on all cylinders this might not have mattered all that much (for instance, Ava 2 was impacted exactly Not At All).  But since much of what they put out didn't click for whatever reasons, these two things fed off each other to one degree or another.

 

This isn't to discount what folks are saying previously.  But I think it's important to remember the dominoes that were first pushed over that started this chain reaction.  If Disney hadn't "picked a fight" with DeSantis/Florida they very very likely would have been forced into a different fight and one that likely would have been similarly damaging to their brand.

Edited February 22 by Porthos

[Captain Obvious]

23 hours ago, MysteryMovieMogul said:

Okay, but... so what? Disney shouldn't do anything about this "problem" because there is no problem. I don't want Disney to cater to a crowd that thought two women kissing was why Lightyear failed (it wasn't).

It was. 

 

22 hours ago, MysteryMovieMogul said:

This could very well be an industry problem, and not just a Disney one. We'll have to find out.

 

It's a disney problem. The public made that very clear. Amazes me how the box office experts are the only ones unable to see this

 

21 hours ago, AniNate said:

Point remains that Disney is being targeted just because they're Disney and everyone knows them. People may claim they hate them in polls or on social media, but they still buy their toys and plushies for their kids and go to the parks. It's empty words and that was evidenced as much by the last quarterly earnings.

 

 

 

Disney is down -20% from pre pandemic and -45% from their all time high. Let's compare with the markets.

Spy500   +50% pre pandemic
Nasdaq   +90% pre pandemic 
DJ30.      + 33% pre pandemic
NETFLIX:  +57%
AMAZON: +66%

Most of the market is sat at their new all time high's whilst disney is struggling and you're suggesting their quarterly earnings reporting a mere 264m net profit for a 150 billion dollar company is proof these are empty words? I hope you don't work in finance because It's a huge drop from the billions they were bringing in each quarter prior to getting involved in politics

If 2023's box office and cultural shift didn't teach disney anything then they can stay woke and broke but I'm sure they've learnt their lesson given their safe F4 casting decisions (bravo for Joseph Quinn being their best casting decision in years) and 2024 can be their comeback year. The brand has undoubtably taken a hit.

[Speedorito]

2 hours ago, Captain Obvious said:

It was. 

 

It's a disney problem. The public made that very clear. Amazes me how the box office experts are the only ones unable to see this

 

 

Disney is down -20% from pre pandemic and -45% from their all time high. Let's compare with the markets.

Spy500   +50% pre pandemic
Nasdaq   +90% pre pandemic 
DJ30.      + 33% pre pandemic
NETFLIX:  +57%
AMAZON: +66%

Most of the market is sat at their new all time high's whilst disney is struggling and you're suggesting their quarterly earnings reporting a mere 264m net profit for a 150 billion dollar company is proof these are empty words? I hope you don't work in finance because It's a huge drop from the billions they were bringing in each quarter prior to getting involved in politics

If 2023's box office and cultural shift didn't teach disney anything then they can stay woke and broke but I'm sure they've learnt their lesson given their safe F4 casting decisions (bravo for Joseph Quinn being their best casting decision in years) and 2024 can be their comeback year. The brand has undoubtably taken a hit.

 

It’s sad that someone created an entirely new account just for this and called themselves “Captain Obvious” like an edgy teen. With rebuttal points like “Uh, yes it was.”

[bryaalre]

2 hours ago, Captain Obvious said:

It was. 

 

It's a disney problem. The public made that very clear. Amazes me how the box office experts are the only ones unable to see this

 

 

Disney is down -20% from pre pandemic and -45% from their all time high. Let's compare with the markets.

Spy500   +50% pre pandemic
Nasdaq   +90% pre pandemic 
DJ30.      + 33% pre pandemic
NETFLIX:  +57%
AMAZON: +66%

Most of the market is sat at their new all time high's whilst disney is struggling and you're suggesting their quarterly earnings reporting a mere 264m net profit for a 150 billion dollar company is proof these are empty words? I hope you don't work in finance because It's a huge drop from the billions they were bringing in each quarter prior to getting involved in politics

If 2023's box office and cultural shift didn't teach disney anything then they can stay woke and broke but I'm sure they've learnt their lesson given their safe F4 casting decisions (bravo for Joseph Quinn being their best casting decision in years) and 2024 can be their comeback year. The brand has undoubtably taken a hit.

 

Is Disney having a brand problem?  Probably a little but the stock price has almost nothing to do with said problem.

 

For starters, last quarter, Disney made nearly $2B in profit.  The number you are referencing was two quarters ago.  That number, as well as the quarter prior, we're intentionally bad as Disney accelerated certain depreciation and amortization from shutting down the Galactic Star cruiser and taking content off of Disney Plus.  This was a calculated move in order to start a new for this fiscal year and allow the streaming numbers to show better financials.  It worked, as the stock soared during the quarter release thanks to the positive outlook on streaming.

 

Also, while Disney stock has underperformed the market and has not been the best investment, it would be better to show other sector specific stocks as well.  Some stocks over the last 5 years:

 

Disney - (6.4%)

Comcast - 7.55%

Warner Discover - (60.75%)

Paramount - (77.15%)

Lionsgate - (41.12%)

 

Disney's brand may have taken a hit but Disney's brand is also what has kept it afloat compared to the rest of the sector as linear television is continuing to see declines and streaming service start ups are a money hole.

 

Disney is far from going broke and are in continuing to position themselves for the foreseeable future, whether you agree with their ways or not.

Edited February 22 by bryaalre

[Eric S'ennui]

Moderation

 

@Captain Obvious Welcome to the forums. We don't do "go woke go broke" stuff here. Quit the condescension, or you won't last long here.

 

As for everybody else, please ignore this Captain Obvious fellow and quit the whole politics stuff. We don't need another flame war in here. Thank you.  

[SpiderByte]

Its always been a confusing take that Disney, who's bread and butter for a significant part of its 100 year history was built off the Disney Princess brand, is suffering from having female leads.

[Torontofan]

Disney just had a lot of poorly made content that didn't appeal to audiences well.

 

They tried to take franchises with set audience demographics and tried to expand them and it didn't work.

 

I think Disney slowing down content and knowing their audience better is a good thing. 

[PlatnumRoyce]

I do want to point out the cross-cutting nature of analysis versus moral takeaways. From a follow-up comment to the Puck piece by an anonymous Disney exec.

 

Quote

"Everyone says its the movies, stupid, which is an easy thing for people to say. More appealing movies are a great way to jump the political issues. But more and more, our audience (or the segment of the audience that has been politicized) equate the perceived messaging in a film as a quality issue. They won't say they find female empowerment distasteful in The Marvels or Star Wars [Daisey Ridley 202x film announcement], but they will say they don't like those movies because they are bad. So 'make better movies becomes code for 'make movies that conform to regressive gender stereotypes or put men front and center in the narrative.' Which is what you're seeing now, and what [Iger]'s pivot is about right now."

 

This is someone Belloni knows that's involved with making Disney films saying "that's a true reading of what's happening at the box office and it's a morally bad outcome" (while also arguing Iger's making overt production related decisions also reflect this belief). This comment isn't disputing the basic conceptual framework doesn't actually map onto people's true perceptions of Disney projects. The line between "very online" cultural commentators and creatives is obviously a fairly blurry one that's not hit with the savvier "corporations are cynics" mode. 

 

It's actually in no way obvious that "regressive gender stereotypes versus progressive female empowerment" explains why people get see or don't see movies as opposed another explanation that's not just pablum. I liked the marvels but it's not like you can look at that film and rise of Skywalker and avoid glaringly obvious quality issues and it actually is a little interesting that this is the sort of analysis you're getting of why the last few years of Disney have been filled with divisive failures. It's flattening the entirety of cultural responses into a single dimensional "virtuous/viscous" line (our virtues aren't rewarded due to the vices of others which are the exact inverse of our virtues).

Edited February 22 by PlatnumRoyce

[AniNate]

Yes, I do think quality is the primary issue. That is the simplest, most bipartisan explanation and it's always been bizarre to me how people look for any other angle to explain it. Sure, it doesn't matter to every movie equally, but as a general rule if you make better films people will be more willing to turn out for them, and won't be as inclined to indulge in political confirmation bias schadenfreude.

[Torontofan]

A lot of people i know who blast disney for the their themes in their movies more blast them for making doing it lazily and and making cheap content.

 

Barbie pushed a message but was a very well made movie with a lot of effort and care put into it. 

[Morieris]

1 hour ago, Torontofan said:

They tried to take franchises with set audience demographics and tried to expand them and it didn't work.

 

What example would you give for that?

[Torontofan]

8 minutes ago, Morieris said:

 

What example would you give for that?

 

They tried to make comic book movies to expand to female audiences but those movies ended up getting mostly male viewers anyways like Marvels. 

 

Its cause the vast majority of comic book movie viewers are male.

 

So if you want to make movies to such audiences they need to be small budget. 

Edited February 22 by Torontofan

[YM!]

Wakanda Forever, though it lost its lead and likely would've fell anyways without or with a Bosman replacement or not did about 450m/860m. 

 

Think the issues of The Marvels had was less so men were alienated and not enough women came through but a death of a thousand cuts (poor reviews and poor audience WOM, bad market campaign, having two Disney+ leads with much smaller popularity, a lot of mediocre MCU projects beforehand diluted the brand of the MCU, a loud fringe section that really has it out for Brie Larson for some reason). I don’t think it or even Madame Web died because they had female leads but they just didn’t measure up. Pretty sure if not for COVID, the demand was definitely there for Black Widow as that did 150M on PA.

Edited February 22 by YM!

[keysersoze123]

So what role is Cavill going to play in MCU? In this post RDJ/CE era, he would be a welcome addition for sure. I hope he plays a bad guy. 

[dudalb]

Go Woke Go Broke means 'I don't like seeing women and minorites having lead roles in movies".

Disney is having a bad spell, but I think politics has little to do with it,. Thye just made a lot of movies that people did not really care for.

And having been the dominast studio of so long, that made them the #1 target.

And as for Disney vs DeSantis last time I looked Disney is till around and De Santis politcal career out of Florida is in ruins......

[dudalb]

2 hours ago, YM! said:

Wakanda Forever, though it lost its lead and likely would've fell anyways without or with a Bosman replacement or not did about 450m/860m. 

 

Think the issues of The Marvels had was less so men were alienated and not enough women came through but a death of a thousand cuts (poor reviews and poor audience WOM, bad market campaign, having two Disney+ leads with much smaller popularity, a lot of mediocre MCU projects beforehand diluted the brand of the MCU, a loud fringe section that really has it out for Brie Larson for some reason). I don’t think it or even Madame Web died because they had female leads but they just didn’t measure up. Pretty sure if not for COVID, the demand was definitely there for Black Widow as that did 150M on PA.

Problem with Marvels si it simply was not a good movie.

Wonder Woman was a huge hit with a female lead, and Black Widow did well enough at the box office, as did the first Captain Marvel film.

[dudalb]

3 hours ago, Torontofan said:

A lot of people i know who blast disney for the their themes in their movies more blast them for making doing it lazily and and making cheap content.

 

Barbie pushed a message but was a very well made movie with a lot of effort and care put into it. 

Thing about Barbie was it got message across in terms of story and charecter, and had a sense of humor about it, it never preached ro the audience the way that some movies do. 

Though my Wife disliked on thing about Barbie,an avid Horsewoman, she did not get the '

Horses are a male thing aspect