The Disney Thread | Iger will be with us until 2026

[ZeroHour]

It's probably worth remembering that Peltz is trying to get on the board, not become CEO. Though I would guess that he would very much like to replace Iger with Jay Rasulo if he managed to get himself (and Rasulo) on the board.

[SpiderByte]

8 minutes ago, dudalb said:

Probably Iger, Peltz has a lot of baggage I don't think he is a viable replacment.

Now that he has attacked Densey openly for the BLack Panther movies, he is gong to become toxic.

 

From my looking at business covering accounts Peltz big two arguments were:

 

Underperforming 2023 slate, which has been hurt by tying it to overt racist statements about Black Panther

 

Iger not having a clear succession plan

[Porthos]

If Peltz had just stuck to an Underperforming 2023 slate argument, he'd be in a better position.

If Peltz had just stuck to attacking The Marvels as a sign of Disney putting Agenda Over Quality, he'd be in a better position — though still a very detestable person as that is not why The Marvels underperformed/flopped.

 

Attacking BP and BP2?  Well I won't say it's a death sentence, coz corporate intrigue can be second only to palace intrigue in its opaqueness and impenetrability from the outside, but it sure doesn't help his chances. 

 

What it does do is help polarize this from a Disney Underperform meta story into a Go Woke, Go Broke/DEI backlash story, and that is much much much more shaky ground to be on.  

 

To put it a different way, it turns it into (more of) a political fight than an economic one, and those are harder to forecast.  Sure Peltz and all will try to say that they're turning away from politics; but the inclusion of very successful films like Black Panther is, as they say, a bit of a tell.

 

And really ought to give fence sitters more than a bit of pause about who'd they'd be getting into bed with.

Edited March 26 by Porthos

[dudalb]

43 minutes ago, Porthos said:

If Peltz had just stuck to an Underperforming 2023 slate argument, he'd be in a better position.

If Peltz had just stuck to attacking The Marvels as a sign of Disney putting Agenda Over Quality, he'd be in a better position — though still a very detestable person as that is not why The Marvels underperformed/flopped.

 

Attacking BP and BP2?  Well I won't say it's a death sentence, coz corporate intrigue can be second only to palace intrigue in its opaqueness and impenetrability from the outside, but it sure doesn't help his chances. 

 

What it does do is help polarize this from a Disney Underperform meta story into a Go Woke, Go Broke/DEI backlash story, and that is much much much more shaky ground to be on.  

 

To put it a different way, it turns it into (more of) a political fight than an economic one, and those are harder to forecast.  Sure Peltz and all will try to say that they're turning away from politics; but the inclusion of very successful films like Black Panther is, as they say, a bit of a tell.

 

And really ought to give fence sitters more than a bit of pause about who'd they'd be getting into bed with.

It was the attacking the BP movies that will hurt him. As you said, it turned it from a business issue...Disney has not done so well lately..to a political one.

He was pretty much saying Blacks should not have leads in big budget movies. He is gong to be jumped on for that bigtime..

I wonder if a  certain POTUS Candidate is going to jump into this fight.

[ZeroHour]

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/bob-iger-disney-nelson-peltz-shareholder-meeting-1235860938/

 

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/egan-jones-nelson-peltz-disney-proxy-fight-1235861094/

 

So following any of the coverage of this proxy fight, it becomes pretty clear that no one has any clue what is going to happen here. What does seem to be the case is that Peltz openly acting like a racist and sexist, and suggesting that Disney should not be in the Black Panther business, has not stopped firms from endorsing him. Those remarks may not end up hurting his cause as much as they probably should.

 

The one narrative that seems to be taking hold in this late phase, and it's a bad one for Disney, is that Iger and the Disney board botched the previous succession and can't be trusted on their own with the next one. 

 

One interesting note from the first Hollywood Reporter link is that Disney has a disproportionate number of retail shareholders because of its high public profile. That could work in Disney's favor since these firm endorsements are more likely to influence institutional shareholders.

 

Still, I don't think anyone can confidently say where this is all going to land. 

[AniNate]

Well, while that political beef is going on, the one that started two years ago has finally ended

 

Settlement reached in lawsuit between Disney and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis' allies | AP News

[Spidey Freak]

19 hours ago, Porthos said:

If Peltz had just stuck to an Underperforming 2023 slate argument, he'd be in a better position.

If Peltz had just stuck to attacking The Marvels as a sign of Disney putting Agenda Over Quality, he'd be in a better position — though still a very detestable person as that is not why The Marvels underperformed/flopped.

 

Attacking BP and BP2?  Well I won't say it's a death sentence, coz corporate intrigue can be second only to palace intrigue in its opaqueness and impenetrability from the outside, but it sure doesn't help his chances. 

 

Even the average alt-right rage tuber is smart enough to stick to softer targets like The Marvels and not criticize Black Panther in their gazillion anti-woke rant videos (at least not in thumbnails). The fact that Peltz went after BP too doesn't just show his bigotry but also reveals he is way out of touch if he doesn't realize how big those movies were financially and that they were the biggest splash made by Disney blockbusters in a long time. 

 

Even if I were purely cynical and just into the numbers and PR, that would be a red flag for me right away. 

Edited March 27 by Spidey Freak

[SpiderByte]

I think generally it's still seen as a long shot. I don't think Disney rolling out the Hulu Disney+ merger today is poorly timed either, especially since that was (partially) something Peltz pushed for

[MysteryMovieMogul]

On 3/21/2024 at 2:51 PM, dudalb said:

I hate the live action remakes with a passion; but it's stupid to deny they have been huge moneymakers for Disney..though what happened with the Little Mermaid might show the GA has had it's fill of them.

If this is true, then the GA is getting tired of theaters in general, since TLM was #6 in Yearly Domestic and #8 in Yearly Worldwide Box Office.

[TwoMisfits]

2 hours ago, AniNate said:

Well, while that political beef is going on, the one that started two years ago has finally ended

 

Settlement reached in lawsuit between Disney and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis' allies | AP News

 

Seems like Iger wanted this issue out of the way, b/c Disney got almost nothing out of the settlement.  But now it's over, so it's a done issue.

Edited March 27 by TwoMisfits

[WittyUsername]

Of all the reasons for Disney to face scrutiny, “wokeness” is as dumb as it gets. I really hate being in a position where I have to root for Bob Iger. 

Edited March 27 by WittyUsername

[dudalb]

1 hour ago, WittyUsername said:

Of all the reasons for Disney to face scrutiny, “wokeness” is as dumb as it gets. I really hate being in a position where I have to root for Bob Iger. 

This. You  can argue that Iger has made some poor decisions and has not been the mirical worker people expected, but to put a bigot on the Board would be a disaster for Disney.

Tne BP remakrs make no sense, given how much the first one made, and even the second turned a nice profit for Disney.

[Porthos]

6 hours ago, ZeroHour said:

Still, I don't think anyone can confidently say where this is all going to land. 

 

I've said it before, and I'll say it again:  Motivated reasoning is a hell of a drug.  If one looks at this dispassionately, Peltz has said all sorts of things that should give people pause/raise red flags.  Attacking Black Panther and Kevin Feige are two big ones (Feige's current speedbumps not withstanding the man's track record speaks for itself).

 

But how many people aren't looking at this dispassionately?  How many people are still smarting over the stock fluctuations of last year?  How many people are looking at how Disney+/Hulu is doing against Netflix?  How many people just want to shake things up and don't care how they do it?

 

(am I making a subtextual point here about a different in-the-news topic?)

Spoiler

 

...

 

How'd that get in there?  No idea.  Anyway, when folks are ornery or displeased with the status quo or just in general dissatisfied, then they are prone to downplay or ignore or in general not give weight to things which might be ordinarily disqualifying.  In fact, someone Saying Something Bold And Controversial might even be seen as a plus in a Speak (Alleged-But-Not-Really) Truth To Power sort of way.  Consider it analogous to the  Good Girls Love Bad Boys phenomenon where folks are actually attracted to someone saying taboo things.  The thrill of being naughty, as it were.

 

NARRATOR:  Again with the subtextual commentary.

 

I do tend to think that Iger has done himself no favors with the lack of succession plan, but let's not kid ourselves.  Disney had a pretty big down year last year and that's the major source of all of this. 

 

How will it end?  Hell if I know.  But better believe that Peltz does indeed have a chance of pulling this out.  How good of a chance?  Again, hell if I know.  Ask me again in a couple of weeks.

Edited March 27 by Porthos

[dudalb]

Peltz  is this desperate to relaunch his daughter's career?

[AniNate]

Well, if Disney had a bad year, wouldn't know it from the D23 ticket sales. Bummed that I got shut out of the arena presentations, truly believed I'd be able to snag something since they moved to a bigger venue this year.

[Porthos]

43 minutes ago, AniNate said:

Well, if Disney had a bad year, wouldn't know it from the D23 ticket sales. Bummed that I got shut out of the arena presentations, truly believed I'd be able to snag something since they moved to a bigger venue this year.

 

So tempted to make a vibes vs data joke here, but I fear I've made enough subtextual comments in this thread for one day. 😉 

Edited March 27 by Porthos

[dudalb]

And we have ratings controversy, with "The FIrst Omen" released by Disney owned 20the Century films, possibly getting slapped with an NC 17 rating. Looks as though Iger has decded to get back into the adult market with this one. Nice thing is he can use the 2OTH Century Label for the "Not SUitable for Kids" stuff, and preserve the Disney Label for family fare.

 

[SpiderByte]

1 minute ago, dudalb said:

And we have ratings controversy, with "The FIrst Omen" released by Disney owned 20the Century films, possibly getting slapped with an NC 17 rating. Looks as though Iger has decded to get back into the adult market with this one. Nice thing is he can use the 2OTH Century Label for the "Not SUitable for Kids" stuff, and preserve the Disney Label for family fare.

 

...The First Omen is already rated. It's R.

[dudalb]

7 minutes ago, SpiderByte said:

...The First Omen is already rated. It's R.

You are fight, but they had one hell of a fight with the ratings board over one scene. But sitll, it indicates Disney is back in the Grown Up only not suitible for kids business. Using the same startegy the did in the late 80;s and the 90's: Use non Disney labels like Touchstone and Hollywood films for the more adult material, keeping the Disney brand family safe.

[filmlover]

7 hours ago, WittyUsername said:

Of all the reasons for Disney to face scrutiny, “wokeness” is as dumb as it gets.

Let's be real: "woke/wokeness" has become the go-to term for the fear-peddlers to prey upon the gullible with, since the word "woke" can mean a lot of different things as opposed to the real words they actually want to use that carry a loaded history and would result in their self-inflicted cancellation (and the self-pity that tends to entail instead of learning a lesson and trying to become a better person).

 

But one way to look at it is that Peltz's freedom of speech means we also have the freedom to mock and laugh at him along with others of his ilk, both for the nonsense that comes out of their mouths and when they cry wolf over being made fun of (something that often happens with conservative pundits whenever they're spoofed on SNL and in other media over the ridiculousness that comes out of their mouths, more secure individuals simply wouldn't even acknowledge the parodies).

Edited March 28 by filmlover