Trouble in the House of Mouse?

28,139 Views | 299 Replies | Last: 3 mo ago by A Net Full of Jello
aggiebird02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
You're just flat out, plain ol' ignorant about this, bub. Parents making a big deal in front of kids is the problem? Just let the kids see stuff, they don't get it yet, right?! NOPE!

Being the parent of a human child means you have to limit what they are exposed to; and you're just lying if you say Disney hasn't snuck in inappropriate stuff in children's programs.

You have no idea what you're taking about…
AgLiving06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TCTTS said:

AgLiving06 said:

As a historic target audience of the Mouse (2 kids under 10). The problem Disney with imo, is they've lost the trust of the core audience. I don't mean putting out bad movies. Those happen, but it's the content itself that is questionable or inappropriate for kids. And that's the biggest red flag.

For example, Spidey and his Amazing Friends. Very younger kid show. It has a person name Jerry who apparently has "They/Them" pronouns. Link

Is that acceptable for kids that young? No.
Do you think a younger kid has any clue or concept of this? No.

My kids no longer get to watch that show.

it means now we have to screen all the content which means watching less of their content because of the extra effort.

Same for Inside/Out 2. We liked the first one. The kids liked it. We are talking about this being our oldest first theatre movie this summer. But there's hesitation because we don't know what they are trying to sneak in. We can't consider taking them until we get a better idea of what is actually hidden in the film.

What Disney has to do, is something they certainly are unwilling or unable to do. Admit they've messed up and start to undo the damage they've done and earn people's trust back.

They've literally already done this. Iger has straight up said, on multiple occasions now, that he feels they went too far in that direction, and that "Our primary mission needs to be to entertain and then through our entertainment to continue to have a positive impact on the world. And I'm very serious about that. It should not be agenda-driven." And that's just one quote. This has been one of his big messages for months now.

All that said, if you're THAT concerned about your kids hearing a single character being referred to as "they/them," I don't know what to tell you. Seems like a ridiculous overreaction to me, but to each their own. All I know is that I have plenty of ultra-Christian family members who continue to take their kids to Disney movies and even they don't give a sh*t. The kids certainly don't care. It's only a big deal when the parents choose to make it a big deal.

Actions speak louder than words.

If they realized their mistakes and their shows course correct, good. They've lost our trust and that has to be earned back, not just given freely.
TCTTS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The reaction to the amount of "agenda-driven" content in these movies FAR outweighs the actual amount of "agenda-driven" content in these movies. In reality, save for, like, Strange World, it's a two-second same-sex kiss in the background here and a single "they/them" there. It ends up being nothing in the grand scheme of things, and hardly even noticeable half the time, especially to kids. Is Disney stupid for trying to force that stuff in the first place? Yes. But I find the reaction equally ridiculous. All of it is just so dumb and over-the-top, and I'm thankful that we finally seem to slowly but surely be leaving that era behind.
IrishAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Gigem314 said:

javajaws said:

Without getting political - most large companies eventually do cuts when the economy turns bad. That is both somewhat inevitable and also healthy. A company without turnover gets stale and eventually lacks innovation. Also lets them cut the fat of bad hires, etc.
Yep. Costs of have gone up significantly over the past few years and that impacts everything eventually.

I also think Disney has been too stubborn. They looked at the success of the original MCU films and thought to themselves "Anything we put out there is going to be great, because we're Disney!". Then they proceeded to put out a greater quantity of projects and remakes out there that lacked compelling, original, storytelling and character development - and a LOT of their content simply hasn't resonated on the same level of what brought them so much success.

Star Wars is a great example - ironically acquired by Disney. The original trilogy was groundbreaking and creative. It resonated with audiences. Ever since then, the Star Wars universe has tried to 'replicate' that or add on to it with a lot of other stories. Some have been pretty good, but a lot of it has become a mess that lacked the compelling storytelling of the original that made audiences fall in love with SW. Whether it was technology, bad characters, casting, or storyline...a lot of the "post-original" Star Wars films and shows have been a shell of the original. It's mostly felt like Star Wars Inc. trying to capitalize on the "brand" with inferior content.

Same thing with the Mouse.

Get back to compelling storytelling.
I think one issue that I haven't seen brought up yet, is the influence of activist investors/hedge fund management groups. Every company (even Apple) has to bow to the almighty strength of the large scale investment funds who demand for constant growth. This scenario is the issue you outlined is like most large scale media/gaming/tech companies in that they are practically forced to keep producing something new instead of refining what they have. New content, new products, new acquisitions, because if you're not doing those things you're not going to be an executive at that company.

Disney just went through a 3-way proxy battle for control of the company, which means there are a ton a heavy weight investors behind the scenes that want to dictate how the company improves their margins so that they can maximize their investment.

The one constant in all of this is that none of these investors think that building better or more refined content/products for the customer is good for business.
Redstone
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Exactly. I don't understand all the disrespect for Kennedy, especially by South Park.

It's almost like there may be something else behind the "criticism."
aggiebird02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Like what? Don't be vague, say what you're implying…
AustinAg2K
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I always laugh to myself when people complain about Star Wars becoming woke. In the original trilogy, all the bad guys are white men, the rebels are not only multicultural, but they are also lead by a woman. Leia becomes a general and orders around Han and Luke non stop. Star Wars has always been woke.

Rogue One checks nearly every woke checkbox. Female hero, check. Multicultural cast, check. Evil white guy, check. Yet no one ever complains that was too woke.

The problem with the newer Star Wars isn't that they are woke. It's just that the writing was bad.
Legal Custodian
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
AustinAg2K said:

I always laugh to myself when people complain about Star Wars becoming woke. In the original trilogy, all the bad guys are white men, the rebels are not only multicultural, but they are also lead by a woman. Leia becomes a general and orders around Han and Luke non stop. Star Wars has always been woke.

Rogue One checks nearly every woke checkbox. Female hero, check. Multicultural case, check. Evil white guy, check. Yet no one ever complains that was too woke.

The problem with the newer Star Wars isn't that they are woke. It's just that the writing was bad.


Correct, when race or "woke" ideologies are still there when writing is poor it makes it seem that they are prioritizing wokeness to good writing/storytelling. And that pisses everyone off no matter the side of the aisle. At least to true entertainment fans.

Then it seems like the writing is poor *because* they are being pushed to include DEI. It's just a messy situation all around
Redstone
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Having a Diverse cast of characters with Diverse actors helps acculturate young fans to the world they will inherit, and fosters tolerance, respect, and civility. Kennedy's vision has done a lot of good, and it's to his credit that Iger seems to agree.

Social commentary and justice has long been entwined with science fiction - just view a Star Trek episode!
aggiebird02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AustinAg2K said:

I always laugh to myself when people complain about Star Wars becoming woke. In the original trilogy, all the bad guys are white men, the rebels are not only multicultural, but they are also lead by a woman. Leia becomes a general and orders around Han and Luke non stop. Star Wars has always been woke.

Rogue One checks nearly every woke checkbox. Female hero, check. Multicultural cast, check. Evil white guy, check. Yet no one ever complains that was too woke.

The problem with the newer Star Wars isn't that they are woke. It's just that the writing was bad.
Rogue One isn't woke, neither WAS StarWars, Leia was freakin' royalty, not some 'Mary Jane'.

All of what you just posted shows that you don't understand a damn thing about woke…
This message brought to you by the Entertainment Board Sneaker Thread Player Haterz Club President.
bluefire579
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Two reasonable posts, and someone comes in gatekeeping "woke". This site never ceases to amaze me.
Ornithopter
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Redstone is using all his trolling powers on this thread.
EclipseAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
If you are focused on Star Wars or instances of inappropriate messaging to children, you are missing the big issue.

The basic problem here is that Disney lost the plot -- culturally and creatively. They lost sight of the core customer. They let individuals within the company hijack the brand for their own agendas. No one was standing firm and saying "No ... go back and do it again."

Walt, Eisner, Katzenberg ... they were famous for saying "It's not good enough."

Maybe the company is just too big. Or maybe the wrong people are in charge. But it happened across all three of their major business lines, and they've let their customers and shareholders down. And without evidence to the contrary, it's STILL happening.

Disney isn't failing. And won't fail. But the company could be so much better.


Redstone
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Structurally, Netflix avoids the Disney problem of a series ballooning in cost as it go on by ending most of its shows after one or two seasons because it's not beholden to the syndication model. So it isn't trying to churn out enough episodes to market it to traditional TV stations or cable channels as Netflix is the syndicator. When the odd hit comes around like Karate Kid or Stranger Things, Netflix buttresses its position with merch and keeps pressure on costs. In both examples, they built shows with older actors who were, shall we say, not very in-demand, plus teenagers and twentysomethings who were cheap to hire in droves and could be switched out if need be.

Disney is trying to produce "premium" series with movie actors, extensive CGI, and tie-ins to movies and larger narrative arcs that give it few options when a series in development isn't working. Then, among those few options Disney is spending a lot more money trying to fix the show before its cemented spot on the schedule arrives. Disney's attempts to make these shows work with young and unproven casts have so far been disastrous and have badly dinged its biggest brands.

None of these problems were foreseen by anyone at Disney (it wasn't widely known outside of Disney just how much they were spending on this bilge). This should have resulted in massive firings, but instead the only person who got fired for failing was Chapek, who tried to implement Iger's strategy as set down before he took the CEO job - one reason he was chosen.

Could this have ever worked? If every show Disney produced had been a massive hit, pushing up movie box office and merch sales, it could have been closer to a wash, losing some money but keeping its prestige franchises going during COVID. Instead, with few exceptions the shows have all fizzled, tarnishing every franchise. Worse, they connected into movie storylines and other series that did poorly, essentially doubling the failure and losses any one weak link in the content chain would produce.
maroon barchetta
How long do you want to ignore this user?

Madmarttigan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
AustinAg2K said:

I always laugh to myself when people complain about Star Wars becoming woke. In the original trilogy, all the bad guys are white men, the rebels are not only multicultural, but they are also lead by a woman. Leia becomes a general and orders around Han and Luke non stop. Star Wars has always been woke.

Rogue One checks nearly every woke checkbox. Female hero, check. Multicultural cast, check. Evil white guy, check. Yet no one ever complains that was too woke.

The problem with the newer Star Wars isn't that they are woke. It's just that the writing was bad.


That's what drives me nuts about the Disney conversation. They are just flat out making bad story and writing decisions across the board. It's bad movies and tv shows no matter who is playing the part.


It's like the Willow show yes it had a super diverse cast and was woke but the story/acting/dialogue was just completely awful and nonsense.
GrayMatter
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I really don't think Disney's issues are the about most of the piddly stuff that is being discussed here. I think Disney's issues are far bigger than that.

You really think Disney cares that you're shelling ~14$/month for Disney Plus when they're charging that much for a beer or a bucket of popcorn at the parks?

Chapek had a lot to do with it's downfall in prioritizing other things that really don't matter versus things that do like park expansions/ideas. I am sure Iger will do a better job but perhaps not like his first time around. I think Disney just needs a new face and voice, a more creative mind that will right the ship.
BBRex
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The Porkchop Express said:

You and I more than anyone likely see the parallel with all of the newspapers being told to start putting content online back in the late 90s / early 00s, doing so, then realizing nobody wanted to pay for it.
I was about to say the same thing. Print was already bleeding, but online became a disaster.
Redstone
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Grateful for the Turn Blue minimum number of Stars on my last post here, just above, but it is disheartening to see an effort-post, with significant detail and analysis, only obtain the minimum status requirement.
maroon barchetta
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Nobody cares about your stars
fig96
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
GrayMatter said:

I really don't think Disney's issues are the about most of the piddly stuff that is being discussed here. I think Disney's issues are far bigger than that.

You really think Disney cares that you're shelling ~14$/month for Disney Plus when they're charging that much for a beer or a bucket of popcorn at the parks?

Chapek had a lot to do with it's downfall in prioritizing other things that really don't matter versus things that do like park expansions/ideas. I am sure Iger will do a better job but perhaps not like his first time around. I think Disney just needs a new face and voice, a more creative mind that will right the ship.
Do I think Disney cares about $14/month with a reported 150 million subscribers worldwide, somewhere around 25 billion in revenue? I absolutely do.

There's also been a significant outlay from them on a lot of Disney+ series that they want to recoup, which is why we're seeing some strategy changes there as well.
EclipseAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Redstone said:

Grateful for the Turn Blue minimum number of Stars on my last post here, just above, but it is disheartening to see an effort-post, with significant detail and analysis, only obtain the minimum status requirement.
Your post reminded me that under Michael Eisner, Disney adopted what he called a "singles and doubles" strategy -- basically, aiming to make small profits on every film and huge profits on the ones that really clicked.

They did that primarily by hiring out-of-favor actors and directors at reduced rates. For example, Robin Williams was coming off a stint in drug rehab when he was cast in "Good Morning, Vietnam." He was paid less than $2 million for the role; the entire budget was just $13 million.

Williams was nominated for an Oscar; the film grossed more than $120 million.

Eisner's Disney was pretty successful at that strategy, but eventually the studio returned to its big-spending ways because executives chafed at being called cheap and wanted access to the biggest stars.

Maybe it's time for a shift to a more austere approach.
AustinAg2K
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GrayMatter said:

I really don't think Disney's issues are the about most of the piddly stuff that is being discussed here. I think Disney's issues are far bigger than that.

You really think Disney cares that you're shelling ~14$/month for Disney Plus when they're charging that much for a beer or a bucket of popcorn at the parks?

Chapek had a lot to do with it's downfall in prioritizing other things that really don't matter versus things that do like park expansions/ideas. I am sure Iger will do a better job but perhaps not like his first time around. I think Disney just needs a new face and voice, a more creative mind that will right the ship.
Does Disney care that I personally am shelling out $14 a month? No. Does Disney care about 100 million people shelling out $14 a month? Damn, right they do.

I do agree with you that it would probably be a good idea to elevate a creative to take over after Iger's stint. Someone earlier said that Iger is better at buying things than building something new. I think that's probably true. I think he can probably stabilize things a bit, but then they need to look at finding someone who can build new properties.
AustinAg2K
How long do you want to ignore this user?
EclipseAg said:

Redstone said:

Grateful for the Turn Blue minimum number of Stars on my last post here, just above, but it is disheartening to see an effort-post, with significant detail and analysis, only obtain the minimum status requirement.
Your post reminded me that under Michael Eisner, Disney adopted what he called a "singles and doubles" strategy -- basically, aiming to make small profits on every film and huge profits on the ones that really clicked.

They did that primarily by hiring out-of-favor actors and directors at reduced rates. For example, Robin Williams was coming off a stint in drug rehab when he was cast in "Good Morning, Vietnam." He was paid less than $2 million for the role; the entire budget was just $13 million.

Williams was nominated for an Oscar; the film grossed more than $120 million.

Eisner's Disney was pretty successful at that strategy, but eventually the studio returned to its big-spending ways because executives chafed at being called cheap and wanted access to the biggest stars.

Maybe it's time for a shift to a more austere approach.
That's an interesting point. You could argue that Marvel took a similar approach. They got RDJ cheap, and the other stars they built the MCU on were mostly unknown or little known. None were box office draws. The characters were the draw, not the actor.
G.I.Bro
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Redstone said:

Grateful for the Turn Blue minimum number of Stars on my last post here, just above, but it is disheartening to see an effort-post, with significant detail and analysis, only obtain the minimum status requirement.


Do you have an "I stand with disney" frame on your fb profile pic?
BBRex
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I think the problem Disney has with Star Wars is that the initial audience (I'm in my 50's and was 7 with the original movie came out), wants to see the stories grow with them. The franchise itself, however, is appealing to all ages, and Disney is trying to create content that appeals to young fans maybe more than to adults, which is frustrating for fans my age. At least some of the Marvel properties are definitely teen to adult oriented, and they can make some of the films appeal to a more adult audience because of it.
javajaws
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
AustinAg2K said:

I always laugh to myself when people complain about Star Wars becoming woke. In the original trilogy, all the bad guys are white men, the rebels are not only multicultural, but they are also lead by a woman. Leia becomes a general and orders around Han and Luke non stop. Star Wars has always been woke.

Rogue One checks nearly every woke checkbox. Female hero, check. Multicultural cast, check. Evil white guy, check. Yet no one ever complains that was too woke.

The problem with the newer Star Wars isn't that they are woke. It's just that the writing was bad.
You forgot incest and fratricide.

I'm kind of surprised the Wookie hasn't gotten some furry action going on yet!
Sea Speed
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
agracer said:

AustinAg2K said:

The Porkchop Express said:

Would it be so terrible for all the streaming services to just merge into one thing with a Google-esque search engine that you use to find what you want and watch it?

I'm sure that's naive on me on about 300 levels with anti-trust and monopoly stuff


It's probably just me being an old man, but a lot of times I feel like there's to much content out there. Some nights I spend 20 minutes just scrolling through stuff only to give up and not watch anything. It sounds stupid, but sometimes I wish I had less choices.
With more choices comes more dillution.

Before cable TV, there were 3 main channels and a few locals. Every write/producer/director/actor was trying their best to get on those limited number of channels. Mostly, only the best made it to the top.

Now, with 200 channels available, there's a lot of crap to filter thru to get to the good stuff.

Honestly, I read this board occasionally for suggestions on shows to watch. Not that I like all of them, but most of them I can get into and will watch (Fallout being the most recent). I've almost never found a new show or movie just searching the streaming services. Either I read about it here, or someone at work mentions it.


I can count on one hand the number of worthwhile shows I have discovered outside of this board in the last decade.
El Gallo Blanco
How long do you want to ignore this user?

Quote:

They've literally already done this. Iger has straight up said, on multiple occasions now, that he feels they went too far in that direction, and that "Our primary mission needs to be to entertain and then through our entertainment to continue to have a positive impact on the world. And I'm very serious about that. It should not be agenda-driven." And that's just one quote. This has been one of his big messages for months now.
Devil's advocate...I have heard from many on this board, and elsewhere, that people were basically crazy for thinking the agenda-driven stuff was even a problem to begin with. It was basically a made up bogeyman.
TCTTS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I only pushed back on the idea that the "agenda" was prominent, or deserved anywhere near the insane level of hysteria/blowback found at times on this board or the internet as a whole.
aggiebird02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TCTTS said:

I only pushed back on the idea that the "agenda" was prominent, or deserved anywhere near the insane level of hysteria/blowback found at times on this board or the internet as a whole.
But you don't know what you're talking about.

You can't understand why so many people (on this board), "blowback". It's because you don't understand what's happening. I'm not gonna say that YOU are a Hollywood nutjob, I wouldn't say that, BUT you are surrounded by Hollywood nut jobs. Your entire livelihood depends on this fictional world that everyone around you supports.

PERHAPS YOU HAVE ZERO PERSPECTIVE ON THIS!

"I can't see the forest through all these dang ol' trees!"
TCTTS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
fig96
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
aggiephoenix02 said:

TCTTS said:

I only pushed back on the idea that the "agenda" was prominent, or deserved anywhere near the insane level of hysteria/blowback found at times on this board or the internet as a whole.
But you don't know what you're talking about.

You can't understand why so many people (on this board), "blowback". It's because you don't understand what's happening. I'm not gonna say that YOU are a Hollywood nutjob, I wouldn't say that, BUT you are surrounded by Hollywood nut jobs. Your entire livelihood depends on this fictional world that everyone around you supports.

PERHAPS YOU HAVE ZERO PERSPECTIVE ON THIS!

"I can't see the forest through all these dang ol' trees!"
Perhaps he has a different perspective on this. And perhaps others who think everyone is boycotting Disney are in a different kind of bubble.
aggiebird02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
fig96 said:

aggiephoenix02 said:

TCTTS said:

I only pushed back on the idea that the "agenda" was prominent, or deserved anywhere near the insane level of hysteria/blowback found at times on this board or the internet as a whole.
But you don't know what you're talking about.

You can't understand why so many people (on this board), "blowback". It's because you don't understand what's happening. I'm not gonna say that YOU are a Hollywood nutjob, I wouldn't say that, BUT you are surrounded by Hollywood nut jobs. Your entire livelihood depends on this fictional world that everyone around you supports.

PERHAPS YOU HAVE ZERO PERSPECTIVE ON THIS!

"I can't see the forest through all these dang ol' trees!"
Perhaps he has a different perspective on this. And perhaps others who think everyone is boycotting Disney are in a different kind of bubble.
We're talking about the poster who thinks parents shielding their children from inappropriate material are the problem, and not the material they're watching. This poster is brainwashed and in the thick of the problem. It's no duh this poster doesn't understand any point of view outside of Hollyweird…
Redstone
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Gentlemen, please, let's keep politics out of the thread.

I've been critical of some of the Disney+ shows, but they've objectively done a great job Diversifying the casts. My 7 year old was watching Jurassic Park this morning, and when I saw Kennedy's name scroll by as a producer, it was hard not to think about then and now in terms of the progress she's helped to usher in.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.