Boom! Disney getting canceled 🤣😅

[RLLD 3,455]

1 minute ago, Sean Mooney said:

I'm into research and proof. I will mock those who are making ill researched assumptions and then double and triple down when they are given reasons that run counter to their thinking. I notice you aren't calling those people out. 

Then you are not paying close enough attention.

[The Real timschochet 2,950]

Beyond the Disney question, this whole attack by conservatives against transgenders is a losing political issue for Republicans: 

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/09/15/how-americans-view-policy-proposals-on-transgender-and-gender-identity-issues-and-where-such-policies-exist/

Except for restrictions on girls sports (which even I agree with) most Americans don’t  like this anti-trans stuff. An even more recent poll suggests that most Americans view woke positively. 

[Hardcore troubadour 12,659]

17 minutes ago, Sean Mooney said:

I'm into research and proof. I will mock those who are making ill researched assumptions and then double and triple down when they are given reasons that run counter to their thinking. I notice you aren't calling those people out. 

You act as if you have given good reasons to dispute it. You haven’t. Disney is being judged on their performance, which is dismal by any standard, and all you do is offer excuses. You claimed a year ago things were fine.  Then they can the top guy. Why would they do that if things were fine like you claimed?  Disneys actions run counter to your claims. 

[Hardcore troubadour 12,659]

11 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

Beyond the Disney question, this whole attack by conservatives against transgenders is a losing political issue for Republicans: 

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/09/15/how-americans-view-policy-proposals-on-transgender-and-gender-identity-issues-and-where-such-policies-exist/

Except for restrictions on girls sports (which even I agree with) most Americans don’t  like this anti-trans stuff. An even more recent poll suggests that most Americans view woke positively. 

Did they interview people in California and New York? Who cares what they think? They are spoken for. 

[Sean Mooney 1,184]

4 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

You act as if you have given good reasons to dispute it. You haven’t. Disney is being judged on their performance, which is dismal by any standard, and all you do is offer excuses. You claimed a year ago things were fine.  Then they can the top guy. Why would they do that if things were fine like you claimed?  Disneys actions run counter to your claims. 

Again- you all have tried to draw a direct line from woke to the dude getting fired and all that. I've shown the other real factors and talked about how their number was inflated to some degree for a while.

You all willfully ignore it. I'm not sure what to tell you at that point. Disney bet big on streaming AND on top of it they have spent billions on live TV rights and have bloated contracts in a time where cable cutting has gutted their subscriber base. These are realities. Not fake culture wars. 

[Hardcore troubadour 12,659]

1 minute ago, Sean Mooney said:

Again- you all have tried to draw a direct line from woke to the dude getting fired and all that. I've shown the other real factors and talked about how their number was inflated to some degree for a while.

You all willfully ignore it. I'm not sure what to tell you at that point. Disney bet big on streaming AND on top of it they have spent billions on live TV rights and have bloated contracts in a time where cable cutting has gutted their subscriber base. These are realities. Not fake culture wars. 

I guess I’ll repeat it for you as well, again. Perhaps it will finally sink in this time: saying all of Disneys woes are about woke is just as stupid as saying none of their woes are about woke. I have said neither, no matter how many times you say I have. You have claimed one of them though. 

[The Real timschochet 2,950]

12 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Did they interview people in California and New York? Who cares what they think? They are spoken for. 

They interviewed people across the country. 

if you want to be anti-woke and anti-trans, have at it. Just know it’s going to lose you elections. 

[Sean Mooney 1,184]

11 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

I guess I’ll repeat it for you as well, again. Perhaps it will finally sink in this time: saying all of Disneys woes are about woke is just as stupid as saying none of their woes are about woke. I have said neither, no matter how many times you say I have. You have claimed one of them though. 

I never said it was all you saying it. But your definitely went through a spell where you were drawing a straight line between the two. It's revisionist history to pretend you weren't

[Hardcore troubadour 12,659]

9 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

They interviewed people across the country. 

if you want to be anti-woke and anti-trans, have at it. Just know it’s going to lose you elections. 

They should leave the kids alone and stop demanding special consideration and go about their business. I’m no threat to them. 

[Strike 3,979]

3 hours ago, GutterBoy said:

So you're suggesting that everyone should sell out and do anything they can to make every dollar possible.

Disney is a publicly traded company.  They have a fiduciary duty to maximize value to their shareholders.

[Strike 3,979]

Tim spouting Pew Research BS again

[The Real timschochet 2,950]

8 minutes ago, Strike said:

Tim spouting Pew Research BS again

It should make common sense. Do you truly believe most of the public is on board with this anti trans stuff, or even give a crap about any of this? If so you’re delusional. 

[Strike 3,979]

1 minute ago, The Real timschochet said:

It should make common sense. Do you truly believe most of the public is on board with this anti trans stuff, or even give a crap about any of this? If so you’re delusional. 

Not sure what you mean by the public being on board with this stuff.  Much like racism, I don't think most of "the public" gives a sh*t UNTIL they feel it personally affecting them.  When teachers are "teaching" SJW crap to their kids instead of math and reading people care.   Either way, again you're not responding to my post.  How about we make a deal.  You don't post Pew Research as a "credible" source and I won't post FAIR.  BTW, I already don't post FAIR because I recognize people such as yourself won't consider them credible.  How about you give the rest of us the same consideration instead of wasting our time with links we won't care about?

[GutterBoy 2,281]

21 minutes ago, Strike said:

Disney is a publicly traded company.  They have a fiduciary duty to maximize value to their shareholders.

Having a fiduciary duty doesn't mean you sacrifice the principals of your corporation.

[RLLD 3,455]

Just now, GutterBoy said:

Having a fiduciary duty doesn't mean you sacrifice the principals of your corporation.

Would you not agree that maximizing profits is proper and good? And that their duty to that outcome supercedes any notion of duty to society at large?

[GutterBoy 2,281]

1 minute ago, RLLD said:

Would you not agree that maximizing profits is proper and good? And that their duty to that outcome supercedes any notion of duty to society at large?

Duty to society at large?  They made movies they want to make, movies that they feel will make them money.  That's what everyone does.  It's like saying "never make an R rated movie, because PG-13 movies do better at the box office".  Come on.  You people are insane.

[RLLD 3,455]

1 minute ago, GutterBoy said:

Duty to society at large?  They made movies they want to make, movies that they feel will make them money.  That's what everyone does.  It's like saying "never make an R rated movie, because PG-13 movies do better at the box office".  Come on.  You people are insane.

But their actions, should be to garner profit.  Right? Their duty to their shareholders is to increase the value of the company, not serve some societal "good".  Or should they accept lesser profit and/or value in order to advance a societal-driven "good"?

[Strike 3,979]

6 minutes ago, GutterBoy said:

Duty to society at large?  They made movies they want to make, movies that they feel will make them money.  That's what everyone does.  It's like saying "never make an R rated movie, because PG-13 movies do better at the box office".  Come on.  You people are insane.

This is a horrible analogy.   PG-13 and R rated movies are marketed for different audiences.  If making the R rated movie prevents them from making a more profitable PG-13 movie, sure.  But if they have the resources to make the profitable R rated movie on top of any other movies they want to make they should make it.  And I'm sure they make those cost analysis' all the time for purposes of maximizing profits.

[GutterBoy 2,281]

6 minutes ago, RLLD said:

But their actions, should be to garner profit.  Right? Their duty to their shareholders is to increase the value of the company, not serve some societal "good".  Or should they accept lesser profit and/or value in order to advance a societal-driven "good"?

Disney made $28B last year.  They're not driven by societal good.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,659]

14 minutes ago, GutterBoy said:

Having a fiduciary duty doesn't mean you sacrifice the principals of your corporation.

So about those slaves……

[edjr 5,567]

We are headed down to our place in Kissimmee in June. I loathe Disney, but we love Universal.

Even though we have been there probably 5 times in my kids 9 years.

Just priced out 1 day ticket for 1 location with speed pass.  1200 for 3 of us. ouch

[RLLD 3,455]

1 minute ago, GutterBoy said:

Disney made $28B last year.  They're not driven by societal good.

Thats fine, not my question though....

Should Disney continue to develop products that are not profitable, and thus not beneficial to its shareholders in order to not "sacrifice the principals of your corporation"?

If that is your position I think its perfectly fine, and I agree, I am simply trying to confirm the position. 

[GutterBoy 2,281]

5 minutes ago, Strike said:

This is a horrible analogy.   PG-13 and R rated movies are marketed for different audiences.  If making the R rated movie prevents them from making a more profitable PG-13 movie, sure.  But if they have the resources to make the profitable R rated movie on top of any other movies they want to make they should make it.  And I'm sure they make those cost analysis' all the time for purposes of maximizing profits.

Yeah this is what Disney does.  They make movies, some of which will go to China, and a few which they know won't make it there.  Just like making some PG movies and some R movies.

[Strike 3,979]

I find it humorous that GutterPedo is pretending Disney has  moral compass of some sort guiding them.  They literally filmed a movie in an area of China with concentration camps, and thanked the cops who run those camps for their help in making the movie:

https://www.vox.com/culture/2020/9/9/21427978/mulan-disney-controversy-explained-uighurs-xinjiang

[GutterBoy 2,281]

1 minute ago, RLLD said:

Thats fine, not my question though....

Should Disney continue to develop products that are not profitable, and thus not beneficial to its shareholders in order to not "sacrifice the principals of your corporation"?

If that is your position I think its perfectly fine, and I agree, I am simply trying to confirm the position. 

I don't think they should make movies which they know won't be profitable, and I don't think they ever have.

[Strike 3,979]

3 minutes ago, GutterBoy said:

Yeah this is what Disney does.  They make movies, some of which will go to China, and a few which they know won't make it there.  Just like making some PG movies and some R movies.

This has nothing to do with your point that I refuted.  But good job moving the goalposts.  The Tim's would be proud of you. 

[GutterBoy 2,281]

8 minutes ago, Strike said:

I find it humorous that GutterPedo is pretending Disney has  moral compass of some sort guiding them.  They literally filmed a movie in an area of China with concentration camps, and thanked the cops who run those camps for their help in making the movie:

https://www.vox.com/culture/2020/9/9/21427978/mulan-disney-controversy-explained-uighurs-xinjiang

I'm not saying Disney is some moral compass, Strikepedo, I'm saying it's fine if they want to make movies that can't get past Chinese censors.  Your point is they should never make a movie unless it can be released in China, and that's focking retarded.

[Sean Mooney 1,184]

3 minutes ago, RLLD said:

Thats fine, not my question though....

Should Disney continue to develop products that are not profitable, and thus not beneficial to its shareholders in order to not "sacrifice the principals of your corporation"?

If that is your position I think its perfectly fine, and I agree, I am simply trying to confirm the position. 

I guess my question would be how far down the rabbit hole does this go. Movie studios- including Disney- have always used tentpole movies to bring in money to make lesser movies that they know will not make money but might bring Oscar recognition and all that. it eliminates woke but it is the company purposely making a movie they think has limited, if any, broad appeal for their own company benefit. 

[RLLD 3,455]

1 minute ago, GutterBoy said:

I don't think they should make movies which they know won't be profitable, and I don't think they ever have.

On that point we can agree to disagree. 

Let's presume they did know, for a moment, that creating a product which history has shown does not generate typical profits was approved and produced.  If they were to do that I infer that using your words "sacrifice the principals of your corporation" is acceptable even if it impacts profits....?

[RLLD 3,455]

2 minutes ago, Sean Mooney said:

I guess my question would be how far down the rabbit hole does this go. Movie studios- including Disney- have always used tentpole movies to bring in money to make lesser movies that they know will not make money but might bring Oscar recognition and all that. it eliminates woke but it is the company purposely making a movie they think has limited, if any, broad appeal for their own company benefit. 

Agree completely!  Thank you.

These companies have plenty of non-profitable ventures. And some of them are done for a variety of reasons. But they make plenty of money. As an investor should our position be "profits over societal action" or should we as investors be ready to welcome a lesser return on our investment in order to allow the company to hold firm to the principles it holds today....since those clearly change?

I mean, as long as they announce thier "principles" those who invest accept the outcomes, right?

[GutterBoy 2,281]

2 minutes ago, Strike said:

This has nothing to do with your point that I refuted.  But good job moving the goalposts.  The Tim's would be proud of you. 

Strikepedo: Disney has a fiduciary responsibility to ensure each movie makes as much as it can

Gutter: What about studios that make R rated movies, knowing that PG-13 movies make more?

Strikepedo: Well they can make R rated movies as long as they make PG-13

Gutter: Disney makes some movies for China and others not for China

Strikepedo: YOUR MOVING THE GOALPOSTS WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

 

[Strike 3,979]

6 minutes ago, GutterBoy said:

I'm not saying Disney is some moral compass, Strikepedo, I'm saying it's fine if they want to make movies that can't get past Chinese censors.  Your point is they should never make a money unless it can be released in China, and that's focking retarded.

I have never said that. 

[Strike 3,979]

Just now, GutterBoy said:

Strikepedo: Disney has a fiduciary responsibility to ensure each movie makes as much as it can

Gutter: What about studios that make R rated movies, knowing that PG-13 movies make more?

Strikepedo: Well they can make R rated movies as long as they make PG-13

Gutter: Disney makes some movies for China and others not for China

Strikepedo: YOUR MOVING THE GOALPOSTS WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

 

First of all, it's "you're."  Try to at least put on the facade of understanding the English language.  And this post completely misrepresents our interaction.  So, either you're being purposely disingenuous or your grammatical error is truly indicative of your mental capabilities.

[Sean Mooney 1,184]

Just now, RLLD said:

Agree completely!  Thank you.

These companies have plenty of non-profitable ventures. And some of them are done for a variety of reasons. But they make plenty of money. As an investor should our position be "profits over societal action" or should we as investors be ready to welcome a lesser return on our investment in order to allow the company to hold firm to the principles it holds today....since those clearly change?

I mean, as long as they announce thier "principles" those who invest accept the outcomes, right?

I think the broader scope in this thread is this. Some people have made this about "Lightyear" bombed or "Strange World" bombed.

Wall Street and the stock market don't look at it like that. They look at it as "Walt Disney did an almost 5 billion box office gross in 2022." People want to look at this from a micro level where the investors and markets look at it more from a macro level. For ease of discussion. 

[GutterBoy 2,281]

2 minutes ago, Strike said:

I have never said that. 

bro can't keep his lies straight anymore

https://www.fftodayforums.com/forum/topic/507766-boom-disney-getting-canceled-/?do=findComment&comment=7262679

 

[GutterBoy 2,281]

2 minutes ago, Strike said:

First of all, it's "you're."  Try to at least put on the facade of understanding the English language.  And this post completely misrepresents our interaction.  So, either you're being purposely disingenuous or your grammatical error is truly indicative of your mental capabilities.

Throws the gun with the grammatical error.

Maybe go back to defending David Koresh's right to fock kids.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,659]

Liberals only care about slaves in America 200 years ago.  Not the present ones. 

[GutterBoy 2,281]

1 minute ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Liberals only care about slaves in America 200 years ago.  Not the present ones. 

Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders approved a bill on Tuesday eliminating a requirement for children under 16 to obtain state documentation in order to work. The new Arkansas law is just one of a number of state bills loosening child labor restrictions, despite evidence that young children are already engaged in dangerous and exploitative labor throughout the country.

https://www.vox.com/policy/2023/3/12/23631282/child-labor-laws-huckabee-sanders-republicans

[edjr 5,567]

1 minute ago, GutterBoy said:

Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders approved a bill on Tuesday eliminating a requirement for children under 16 to obtain state documentation in order to work. The new Arkansas law is just one of a number of state bills loosening child labor restrictions, despite evidence that young children are already engaged in dangerous and exploitative labor throughout the country.

https://www.vox.com/policy/2023/3/12/23631282/child-labor-laws-huckabee-sanders-republicans

Does this include prostitution? Asking for a friend. 

[RLLD 3,455]

5 minutes ago, Sean Mooney said:

I think the broader scope in this thread is this. Some people have made this about "Lightyear" bombed or "Strange World" bombed.

Wall Street and the stock market don't look at it like that. They look at it as "Walt Disney did an almost 5 billion box office gross in 2022." People want to look at this from a micro level where the investors and markets look at it more from a macro level. For ease of discussion. 

Agree.  Wall Street cares about specific things and if they are happy with Disney then its going according to plan.

As an individual investor it might be nice to have the option to invest in a company that is also feeding your political agenda as well as your investment goals.  Similarly, if you instead prefer a company focused on value to the investor it is nice to have access to that as well. 

As an investor I would probably shy away from companies getting involved in political matriculations that do not feed profit.

But I think we can all agree there should be a morality involved, right?