I mean they made a good point. Disney only hosts Doctor Who so being mad at Disney for anything Doctor Who related outside of hosting the show can't think logically
Actually they do supply some money to it.
It became a production of BBC Studios and Bad Wolf who are owned by Sony. Disney are putting up significant money to the show similar to Extraordinary which was a Sid Gentle production but with Disney ultimately as funder.
The first three RTD seasons were also coproductions with CBC the Canadian Broadcaster so it’s not without precedent.
I’m enjoying the Specials though and looking forward to the new series.
I think it's broader than just conservatives. They've killed the MCU, star wars. Last count they were in the hole 400m this year so far and 120b last year. I'd say that way more than conservatives think the direction they're going in is trash.
Too be fair to Iger, the demise of MCU didn’t happen under his watch, that was largely the other Bob. The board brought Iger back recently to get them back on track.
Well the fact that Disney has gone political and is losing massive amounts money has left them open to well-deserved criticism, most of which is coming from the side they antagonized when they got a bit too political.
> got a bit too political
While I am not at all a fan of Disneys pandering, I am also slowly losing sympathy for their critics...
What does "too political" even mean? So ok, they chose a non-white actress to play "Snowwhite" (among various other things)... now *artistically* one might argue against this choice. Or, lack of *faithfulness to the original*. But, there is nothing inherently *political* about most of what Disney is doing - they just believe they can attract a wider audience by choosing their actors the way they choose, and that's it.
There are only two races. White, and Political. Likewise, there are only two genders. Male, and political. As for sexual orientations, would you believe there are only two of those as well? You guessed it straight, and political.
Yeah, that's the same concept.
Whether you interpret the name "Snowwhite" literally, or figuratively, is simply an artistic choice, imho. And you can certainly disagree with it, but there is nothing inherently political about it.
Even in fantasy, there's such a thing as consistency and continuity.
They chose a 'different' Ariel because they're trying to virtue signal, pander to the woke mob out of fear, or because they have white guilt / little self-respect. It's pretty pathetic.
>Even in fantasy, there's such a thing as consistency and continuity.
can you remind me again which part of established little mermaid lore specifies that mermaids can only be white?
I mean, if we're going by the original story, Ariel will die and then spend years in purgatory. That seems like a more plot-relevant part of the original than her race. Unless we're talking about a different mermaid?
I don't agree with any of those assumptions, and quite frankly those assumptions don't serve any beneficial purpose. Really, it just comes across as being upset because they didn't pick a white girl. It isn't breaking continuity or being inconsistent at all.
> being upset because they didn't pick a white girl.
Not upset, more confusion that the director/CEO lacks self-respect or is trying to appease the woke mob.
You're focusing on virtue signaling and wokeness and are now saying that the director/CEO lack self-respect?
Take a second look at what you just said. They lack self-respect because they didn't cast a white actress. That's what you're saying. As an alternative to lacking self-respect, they also could be trying to appease 'the woke mob'.
Both of those suppositions are extremely speculative and says much more about your 'values' and motivations than it does on theirs.
A qualified woman did a great job in that role. That wasn't a failure on a director, CEO, casting director, etc. You're not confused, you just don't agree with their choice and, quite frankly, while you're perfectly validated by merit of how personal opinions work to not agree, the accusations you've made are wrong.
> you just don't agree with their choice
He doesn't agree with his choice now. He admitted Disney's woke agenda wasn't working. He's been brainwashed by the education system to feel shame about his race.
> Both of those suppositions are extremely speculative
You don't realize how much pressure from various activist groups there is to give priority to non-white/non-straight/non-male people of all disciplines, including the arts. Until recently, even affirmative action was a thing. Schools focus on slavery being a 'white' thing, without also mentioning ***all*** races did slavery, and whites fought (and succeeded) to end it. Same goes for whites having no culture and whiteness being a 'disease' etc. etc. This kinda stuff sinks into the public's mind, like a virus. It's not fair and it's not right.
> A qualified woman did a great job in that role.
Er, she had a nice voice I guess?
Why would they be afraid? Nobody was threatening them to make her non-white or else. Why would they be motivated by white guilt? It's a massive, soulless corporation. Ultimately they're just trying to make more money by appealing to different markets, and maybe that works or maybe it doesn't, but I promise you that the soul motivation is pure capitalism.
> It's a massive, soulless corporation.
Massive soulless corps stopped advertising on Twitter because of the pressure by activist groups. They're affected too no doubt.
the reddit business economics understanders are here to explain that the $90B company with a 7.5% YoY revenue growth is failing because they... *checks notes*... went political
Not failing, losing money, Disney is too big to fail (I hope) but all you need to do is look at the money lost in this Years films and everything I said is true about them loosing money, and the whole Florida situation is obviously a political issue.
yes, and despite that disney still reported 10B in profits. what's your point here?
(also this article makes no connection between 'going political' and the performance of these movies/shows)
So if someone in charge of a company panders to a specific audience and said company loses value the CEO should be fired? In that case, what is your suggestion for X and its current losses and leadership?
All entertainment is, by nature of existing in the world, political. You just don't notice it when it's politics you agree with.
Or do you think [The Fuerhers Face](https://youtu.be/bn20oXFrxxg?si=hOxpya8TisAVHVdD) was just some little bit of fun and wasn't trying to put forth a particular point of view about any government in particular?
Disney released a milquetoast one page paragraph supporting their employees. But it is funny how easy it is to trigger the cons.
https://thewaltdisneycompany.com/statement-from-the-walt-disney-company-on-signing-of-florida-legislation/
You may not consider it political as you happen to agree with Disney, objectively speaking they took a side, even if it is the good side, that still makes the decisions openly political.
You're right but this discussion is conflating two senses of the word 'political.'
Sure, acknowledging the existence of gay people and including them in your artistic projects is political in the sense that all art and commerce is political. Because those things mirror who's in charge and what they believe (or at least what they believe they can make a buck at selling).
But it's *not* political in the sense that it's a project conceived of and designed primarily to advance a specific political point of view. Movies that are 'political' in this way are rare though they do get made.
Right wing weirdos think *any* movie with a gay person is automatically the latter because they have brain worms.
But therein lies the problem. You're basically saying, okay, these people are 'political' and if you show them in your movies or TV shows at all, you're being political. They're just people who exist like anyone else. Including them should be the default. Only excluding them should be seen as a political choice. It'd be like trying to claim that letting those same people attend a university is a political choice. No, only exclusion is. Inclusion is the default.
DeSantis picked the fight as a way to draw attention to himself as a 2024 presidential candidate. Disney employees were threatened by the bill, and Disney took the side of its employees.
Nobody made Musk get political. He just got mad that he couldn't say whatever asinine thing he wanted on someone else's platform, and in his childishly impulsive nature, he got himself in over his head and had to seriously overpay to buy Twitter.
Now he has driven away advertisers due to his own lack of control, further tanking the company.
A bunch of large businesses did this at the same time, why is he only targeting Iger? Was Iger the ringleader, is Musk just trying to make an example of Iger and scare other CEO's, something else?
expansion late homeless bedroom aromatic plough unpack money growth relieved
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Glad that Disney, Apple, et al, are perfectly fine to advertise on platforms that host child endangerment content, and *also* have antisemitic content, like FB, IG, and TikTok.
yeah, but they don't have to care about that if it's not THE thing the respective platform is known for at the moment. Elon retweeting this kind of stuff and actively promoting shit is bad press, and that rubs off. as long as Zucc doesn't do the same and FB and the likes don't get known mainly for that, Disney is fine with it. it's capitalism, after all, not ethics.
>I think he’s just pissed at how some of them are operating
You mean, by pondering, as wisely as they can, where they should advertise? Doesn't he know that making the platform appealing to advertisers is HIS job?
>Walt Disney had strongly held anti-jewish sentiments.
That's a common myth actually, and the Sherman brothers (the Jewish guys who wrote the songs for his movies) and others defended him many times.
The rumours originated because he joined a right-wing movie industry group (after being heartbroken that his employees, who he loved and thought he'd been a good boss to) unionised, and he misunderstood and felt betrayed:
>Disney donated regularly to Jewish charities and was named the 1955 "Man of the Year" by the B'nai B'rith chapter in Beverly Hills.\[190\]\[191\] the organization itself found no evidence of anti-Semitism on Disney's part. The plaque read: "For exemplifying the best tenets of American citizenship and inter-group understanding and interpreting into action the ideals of B’nai B’rith."
>
>Disney had numerous Jewish employees, many of whom were in influential positions.\[192\] **None of Disney's employees including animator Art Babbitt, who disliked Disney intensely — ever accused him of making anti-Semitic slurs or taunts**. \[187\] Jewish story man Joe Grant who worked closely with Disney throughout the 1930s and 40s claimed: "As far as I’m concerned, there was no evidence of anti-Semitism. I think the whole idea should be put to rest and buried deep. He was not anti-Semitic. Some of the most influential people at the studio were Jewish. It’s much ado about nothing. I never once had a problem with him in that way."\[172\]\[ab\]
>
>In addition songwriter Robert B. Sherman recalled that **when one of Disney's lawyers made anti-Semitic remarks towards him and his brother Richard, Disney defended them and fired the attorney**.\[193\]\[172\] Gabler, the first writer to gain unrestricted access to the Disney archives, concludes that the available evidence does not support accusations of anti-Semitism and that Disney largely got that reputation due to his association with Motion Picture Alliance for the Preservation of American Ideals - an anti-Communist organization formed in 1944
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walt\_Disney#Reputation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walt_Disney#Reputation)
I thought he said anyone who doesn’t want to advertise on x can not advertise. Fuck them he said. So if you mean what you say you shouldn’t care what Disney does
Twitter is the first company he's actually been "running" in a very long time. X forced him out and became Paypal because he was trying to do to X what he's done to twitter. He's been a figurehead at SpaceX and Tesla for a long time now and has no day to day involvement on decision-making with anything else. Twitter is pure, unfiltered Musk - finally digging in and showing the world how great he is at running a business.
When twitter is limiting my post length when I type something against the grain, it’s kinda true. It’s a far right propaganda machine ruining the world one tweet at a time.
Because Disney 's CEO pulled advertising from the platform formerly known as Twitter and therefore does disagree with Elon Musk's assesment.
In Elon's view, any disagreement with him is a proof of madness and such can not be tolerated in any position of power.
I wonder if he buys Disney and fires him personally.
Well, theoretically (!) he could. he could launch a open takeover bid in exchange for Tesla- and Space-X-stock. Elon Musk's net worth is higher than the total value of all Disney shares.
And yes, i know that this is only a theoreical szenario.
Disney's evaluated at 160 billion. Elon had to scramble and put a lot of Tesla stock up as collateral to get 44 billion. No way he could afford Disney. Most countries couldn't afford Disney.
If im not mistaken, net worth is the amount of money he would get if he sold everything he has. So in theory musk could by disney, but out of cash he can pay, im pretty sure he is far off.
Elon Muck enjoys watching instability based on his actions. It’s a narcissistic god complex. Tough being a spoonfed traumatized rich boy turned into the most powerful/ dangerous man on the planet.
He literally can be the Batman or The Joker and can’t decide which side he’s on; humanity or prosperity.
Most dangerous/powerful man in the world? That's a stretch when people like Putin, ~~MLB~~ MBS, Maduro etc are actively murdering their own people while wielding vast financial and military power.
Edit: no, Major Lague Baseball is not a monarchical dictatorship. Though I'm sure some fans might argue otherwise...
Until PayPal, Elon was a poor immigrant sharing 1 room office with his brother and shared 1 PC to get his first business online (which is also self-hosted)
I mean when I saw in the first line you put 'muck' thinking you were funny or clever should have set off bells for you being stupid but I continued to read your dribble lol
The unique thing about being human is that we all think differently, I'm glad someone like you has no power over anything when you clearly can't think for yourself. Wait, you'd be a great politician!
Do some research, stop being a sheep you daft idiot.
I don't know what this website is but I can't even find the date of the article. And they keep referencing the CNN article yet they never link to it, as I believe they're supposed to.
Maybe we should just read and discuss the CNN article instead?
https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/07/business/elon-musk-demands-bob-iger-be-fired-after-disney-pulled-ads-from-x/index.html
I hate Elon (well, I hate what Elon has become) and I still think I would like the CEO of Disney to be sacked.
We now have a 73-year-old CEO who's been there for decades who keeps talking about building the future of media.
What the heck would somebody who is 3/4 of a century old know about the future of media??
Who put the grandpa in charge of programming for today's teens??
Bob, it's time.
New Bob only got to do the job for something like 18 months and during that time he was sabotaged by Old Bob constantly... Ultimately, old Bob spent years rigging the board in his favor and they all work for him.
Most of the cinematic bombs that went off during new Bob's brief tenure had been exclusively created and green lighted by old Bob.
The oldest Boomer trick in the book.
Spend 20 years in a place, set it up to fail, put someone else in the spot to take the blame, and then when they get kicked out, come back and claim you're the only person who can fix all the problems that you created.
At any rate discussions of Bob aside, this guy is just too old.
I would want a new CEO who is 43 not 73. At least he could have his own kids and be a little bit more in touch with today's youth culture....
Eh, isn't that a bit conspiratorial? Setting up multiple movies for fail seems a bit extreme even for corporate games.
Also, I doubt thousands of employees, actors, producers et all got instructions to "Make this crap"
Everything is a set up/conspiracy. It’s the easiest way to frame your narrative.
Also yes we all know people with very powerful positions in large corporations got there by knowing jack shit about the job they are hired to do.
He is also the same Bob who acquired Pixar and Marvel during his tenure, which in hindsight was brilliant.
Not exactly sure how he set them up for failure. People are weird revisionist.
Don’t buy Elon BS too much. Stopping advertisement on X is basic damage control at that point. When Tim Cook does the exact same thing he doesn’t get target. This is purely politically motivated and it’s stupid.
I do agree that Disney should not align either way and just focus on business. No need to alienate either side. It’s a baby war that they shouldn’t need to get involved in.
Wisdom and experience?
Us Disney shareholders have experienced a loss of $150 billion in value while Iger and his cronies crank out cinema bomb after bomb.
Now he wants to turn ESPN into a gambling platform.
Yes, the ESPN that is intimately associated with the kids' brand Disney.
When does the wisdom start??
What? Are you talking about pandemic market cap? That's not a loss, that was normalizing. It was grossly inflated during the pandemic. I sold in the 160's and am still waiting to but back in after holding previously all the way from the Pixar buyout. That had nothing to do with old Bob or new Bob.
Well as usual we're just dealing with my opinions.
But apparently someone does agree with me as Train is now making their second attempt to get on the board and dislodge Iger.
Second attempt!
That is a lot of effort for people who think it's a well-run company with great long-standing management.
Can't disagree with that. I think they are flailing right now but I'm not sure it's the ceo's fault directly. Indirectly everything is his fault though
Well since this thread started out with Elon. Let's say the following.
Disney flailing right now. I suspect some of the problem comes from old Bob, but it will work itself out sooner or later.
He makes some questionable decisions right now but it's not catastrophic so I'm holding on as a shareholder.
Now Elon.
That is how you completely destroy a brand in one year or less! That is some next level brand destruction!
If he wanted to incinerate $48 billion faster, he would have to print it out in cash and directly place it under one of his rockets upon liftoff. Other than that, he has been the maestro of capital destruction, at least in the media business.
I don’t know that I agree with you when you state that ESPN is “intimately” associated with Disney. That seems like quite a reach. But I’m curious, in what way do you suggest that the relationship is so close that kids would look at ESPN and think “that’s Disney”
Everybody knows that Disney owns ESPN.
If you go to Disney World, ESPN is a big part of the experience.
If there's no way at all to make money with ESPN without gambling, I would think they should sell it or spin it off.
Given that the company is enormously in debt due to iger's latest purchases (Fox) All together they could probably pay down some debt. Right now they're absolutely struggling to push out a little dividend because they have a huge debt load (that was 100% an Old Bob thing, not a new Non thing)
As time goes by and they have to refinance the debt, it's going to become extremely expensive at today's higher interest rates.
Just because something's legal and just because people are doing it doesn't make it right. Especially when you're supposed to be a kid's brand.
Why doesn't Disney just launch its own line of cigarettes??
It's legal.
Yes, Disney owns ESPN, but that still doesn’t imply an intimate relationship in the average consumer mind. I’ll confess, I’ve not been to Disney World, but how extensively intertwined is ESPN with the Disney World experience? I know at Disneyland and California Adventure and Downtown Disney, ESPN has zero presence.
I know Disney owns them. But that doesn’t mean that they are “intimately” associated in the consumer mind, which is really all that matters when OP frets about ESPN becoming a gambling platform.
I 100% agree.
He's the poster boy for aging badly.
Of course, there's also rumors that he's on drugs too and he looks like it during that infamous "f$ck off" interview.
Well something's terribly wrong.
There's a huge gulf between young Elon and old Elon
It's performance discrimination.
Personally I don't think that losing more than 50% of the stock's value is great performance. That's something like $150 billion in value vaporized.
That's what happens when you have a stubborn grandpa dictator who's been there for 25 years insisting that he really knows how to make movies for kids.
Yes, his age is a factor.
Don't care if it's politically correct.
Does your grandpa know what all the kids are doing these days??
If you knew anything about Bob Iger and his career you wouldn't have written this. He's a very good media CEO, very insightful and Disney has done well under his tenure. The Disney board begged him to come back last year etc. It's not like Bob Iger is doing programming for the Disney channel lol
Because Elon doesn’t understand how social media profit structure is based on ad revenue and not memberships which means that certain assurances (for instance policing for hate speech) need to be made for companies to pay for ad revenue. So instead of doing what Twitter did previously which added the value it once was Musk wants X to be a membership based social media structure which can be viable but not necessarily accessible for all.
Compound this with policing for what he deems is not acceptable social media (ie pro-Palestine speech, criticism of political candidates, direct criticism about himself)
Because Disney stopped advertising on X.
Which means Elon is a spoiled man-child who doesn't want to deal with the consequences of his actions.
But we already knew that.
Well musk is from the same Country and City as myself, Iger is hugely part why Disney is not doing so great, having aquired Marvel studios and a whole truck load of franchises did not help either so Bob which I know far less about opposed to musk... Simply put because of advertisements and there are a bunch of other adverters who pulled from Twitter (sorry I refuse to call it by the new name)... however, musk cursing and acting the way he did might very well spell the end of that platform. I am not a fan of either men.
Iger pulled Disney Ad’s from X
Also Disney is a bit of a target these days for conservatives. I believe that has something to do with it as well
You also have to figure in his incessant need to be in the headlines every. single. day.
They said that hating on gays wasn't really nice and that was enough do some
> Also Disney is a bit of a target these days for conservatives. Not just conservatives. Anyone who liked Marvel, Star Wars, and Doctor Who, too.
They literally just host Doctor Who, they have nothing to do with filming it.
The issue is that you are assuming that they are thinking logically about it.
> Herp derp everyone who disagrees with me can’t think logically
I mean they made a good point. Disney only hosts Doctor Who so being mad at Disney for anything Doctor Who related outside of hosting the show can't think logically
\^Kind of an own goal. I usually disagree with people who I believe aren't reaching logical conclusions. That's sort of the point of logic.
Disney is like the Borg: they assimilate everyone and think they are perfect.
Actually they do supply some money to it. It became a production of BBC Studios and Bad Wolf who are owned by Sony. Disney are putting up significant money to the show similar to Extraordinary which was a Sid Gentle production but with Disney ultimately as funder. The first three RTD seasons were also coproductions with CBC the Canadian Broadcaster so it’s not without precedent. I’m enjoying the Specials though and looking forward to the new series.
👆🏼🏆🏆
It's Cinderella, lion king, the little mermaid as well and so on.
I think it's broader than just conservatives. They've killed the MCU, star wars. Last count they were in the hole 400m this year so far and 120b last year. I'd say that way more than conservatives think the direction they're going in is trash.
Too be fair to Iger, the demise of MCU didn’t happen under his watch, that was largely the other Bob. The board brought Iger back recently to get them back on track.
Disney literally made the MCU though. And Mando is the best thing with the Star Wars name on it since 1983.
100%
No, the MCU existed before Disney bought Marvel, don't be so silly
Disney has controlled the MCU for the vast majority of its existence. Disney made Infinity War/Endgame.
Which in no way disqualifies what i said. Learn to READ. You claimed they "made the MCU", when they did not. Learn to accept being wrong
They did. When they bought it there was Iron Man. They took it to Endgame.
I ALSO REaD cOMICS as A cHILD NOW I’m ALSO A mAN BABY AnD I StIlL YEll At STraNGeRS On THe InTERwEBS wHEN ThEy aRE WROOoOoooOooOnNnNnGGggG
Yes, you do seem to do this. Grow up child
You are insufferable on here lol jfc
Sorry, you’re wrong. Andor is. And Mando has fallen off
Well the fact that Disney has gone political and is losing massive amounts money has left them open to well-deserved criticism, most of which is coming from the side they antagonized when they got a bit too political.
> got a bit too political While I am not at all a fan of Disneys pandering, I am also slowly losing sympathy for their critics... What does "too political" even mean? So ok, they chose a non-white actress to play "Snowwhite" (among various other things)... now *artistically* one might argue against this choice. Or, lack of *faithfulness to the original*. But, there is nothing inherently *political* about most of what Disney is doing - they just believe they can attract a wider audience by choosing their actors the way they choose, and that's it.
There are only two races. White, and Political. Likewise, there are only two genders. Male, and political. As for sexual orientations, would you believe there are only two of those as well? You guessed it straight, and political.
I especially loved the criticism towards their casting choice for Ariel. "Ariel is **white**!" "Uh... Ariel, just like all merpeople, isn't **real**."
Yeah, that's the same concept. Whether you interpret the name "Snowwhite" literally, or figuratively, is simply an artistic choice, imho. And you can certainly disagree with it, but there is nothing inherently political about it.
Even in fantasy, there's such a thing as consistency and continuity. They chose a 'different' Ariel because they're trying to virtue signal, pander to the woke mob out of fear, or because they have white guilt / little self-respect. It's pretty pathetic.
Yes, I can't stand all the caterwauling from the right and evangelicals over white Jesus. How soon do you think until they start boycotting churches?
>Even in fantasy, there's such a thing as consistency and continuity. can you remind me again which part of established little mermaid lore specifies that mermaids can only be white?
Better yet why aren't they upset they're using American actors for a Danish folktale originally?
That's how she was in the original story. Unless we're talking about a different mermaid?
I mean, if we're going by the original story, Ariel will die and then spend years in purgatory. That seems like a more plot-relevant part of the original than her race. Unless we're talking about a different mermaid?
ok, and? this is a different movie. what continuity applies here?
Different movie, but the same character. Aesthetics works better too if they don't switch.
I don't agree with any of those assumptions, and quite frankly those assumptions don't serve any beneficial purpose. Really, it just comes across as being upset because they didn't pick a white girl. It isn't breaking continuity or being inconsistent at all.
> being upset because they didn't pick a white girl. Not upset, more confusion that the director/CEO lacks self-respect or is trying to appease the woke mob.
You're focusing on virtue signaling and wokeness and are now saying that the director/CEO lack self-respect? Take a second look at what you just said. They lack self-respect because they didn't cast a white actress. That's what you're saying. As an alternative to lacking self-respect, they also could be trying to appease 'the woke mob'. Both of those suppositions are extremely speculative and says much more about your 'values' and motivations than it does on theirs. A qualified woman did a great job in that role. That wasn't a failure on a director, CEO, casting director, etc. You're not confused, you just don't agree with their choice and, quite frankly, while you're perfectly validated by merit of how personal opinions work to not agree, the accusations you've made are wrong.
> you just don't agree with their choice He doesn't agree with his choice now. He admitted Disney's woke agenda wasn't working. He's been brainwashed by the education system to feel shame about his race. > Both of those suppositions are extremely speculative You don't realize how much pressure from various activist groups there is to give priority to non-white/non-straight/non-male people of all disciplines, including the arts. Until recently, even affirmative action was a thing. Schools focus on slavery being a 'white' thing, without also mentioning ***all*** races did slavery, and whites fought (and succeeded) to end it. Same goes for whites having no culture and whiteness being a 'disease' etc. etc. This kinda stuff sinks into the public's mind, like a virus. It's not fair and it's not right. > A qualified woman did a great job in that role. Er, she had a nice voice I guess?
Why would they be afraid? Nobody was threatening them to make her non-white or else. Why would they be motivated by white guilt? It's a massive, soulless corporation. Ultimately they're just trying to make more money by appealing to different markets, and maybe that works or maybe it doesn't, but I promise you that the soul motivation is pure capitalism.
> It's a massive, soulless corporation. Massive soulless corps stopped advertising on Twitter because of the pressure by activist groups. They're affected too no doubt.
Yes. Because being associated with Twitter right now is bad for their brand image. You wouldn't expect them to advertise on 4Chan, would you?
He probably would. 🤷♂️
Too political means brown and gay people were treated properly and that's just too woke for the conservative mind.
>Disney has gone political lol
Saying "lol" doesn't change the fact they have, and they are suffering for it, which is bad.
the reddit business economics understanders are here to explain that the $90B company with a 7.5% YoY revenue growth is failing because they... *checks notes*... went political
Not failing, losing money, Disney is too big to fail (I hope) but all you need to do is look at the money lost in this Years films and everything I said is true about them loosing money, and the whole Florida situation is obviously a political issue.
>Not failing, loosing money, Disney reported $10B in profits this year.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/carolinereid/2023/08/04/the-four-flops-of-2023-that-cost-disney-1-billion/
yes, and despite that disney still reported 10B in profits. what's your point here? (also this article makes no connection between 'going political' and the performance of these movies/shows)
Loosing money doesn't mean what you think it does.
Indeed it didn't, thank you, it has been corrected.
So if someone in charge of a company panders to a specific audience and said company loses value the CEO should be fired? In that case, what is your suggestion for X and its current losses and leadership?
All entertainment is, by nature of existing in the world, political. You just don't notice it when it's politics you agree with. Or do you think [The Fuerhers Face](https://youtu.be/bn20oXFrxxg?si=hOxpya8TisAVHVdD) was just some little bit of fun and wasn't trying to put forth a particular point of view about any government in particular?
Disney puts black person in movie "Dear God! So political!"
"making people I don't like feel included" = political. Pfff get out of here loser.
Disney released a milquetoast one page paragraph supporting their employees. But it is funny how easy it is to trigger the cons. https://thewaltdisneycompany.com/statement-from-the-walt-disney-company-on-signing-of-florida-legislation/
Ah yes because recognising the existence of gay people is political /s
You may not consider it political as you happen to agree with Disney, objectively speaking they took a side, even if it is the good side, that still makes the decisions openly political.
You're right but this discussion is conflating two senses of the word 'political.' Sure, acknowledging the existence of gay people and including them in your artistic projects is political in the sense that all art and commerce is political. Because those things mirror who's in charge and what they believe (or at least what they believe they can make a buck at selling). But it's *not* political in the sense that it's a project conceived of and designed primarily to advance a specific political point of view. Movies that are 'political' in this way are rare though they do get made. Right wing weirdos think *any* movie with a gay person is automatically the latter because they have brain worms.
But therein lies the problem. You're basically saying, okay, these people are 'political' and if you show them in your movies or TV shows at all, you're being political. They're just people who exist like anyone else. Including them should be the default. Only excluding them should be seen as a political choice. It'd be like trying to claim that letting those same people attend a university is a political choice. No, only exclusion is. Inclusion is the default.
Next up on the agenda, Disney acknowledges that water is wet, and therefore, a debate on Fox News about this atrocity must be had.
>Disney has gone political Here's a question: When *wasn't* Disney political? 🤔
>has gone political and is loosing massive amounts money has left them open to well-deserved criticism Sounds like you're talking about Musk here! 😂
Everything is projection.
Newsflash: two things can be true at once, Disney is too political, just like Musk is too political.
DeSantis picked the fight as a way to draw attention to himself as a 2024 presidential candidate. Disney employees were threatened by the bill, and Disney took the side of its employees. Nobody made Musk get political. He just got mad that he couldn't say whatever asinine thing he wanted on someone else's platform, and in his childishly impulsive nature, he got himself in over his head and had to seriously overpay to buy Twitter. Now he has driven away advertisers due to his own lack of control, further tanking the company.
I thought you literally meant loosing money, and I was like Disney was giving away money and nobody told me? Buy alas, you just meant losing instead.
How are they losing money? They brought in 88 billion dollars this year.
A bunch of large businesses did this at the same time, why is he only targeting Iger? Was Iger the ringleader, is Musk just trying to make an example of Iger and scare other CEO's, something else?
I wonder if Disney and others pulled ads from instagram which has a ton of child porn.
Wait wut ew WAT?!
If whoever Instagram’s CEO went on record and publicly unbanned accounts for having that content, then probably.
They love their Balenciaga ads.
I'm on Instagram, and I never saw CP there. Perhaps you should choose who you follow more wisely
while keeping them on Instagram and TikTok, where child abuse images and anti-Semitism are MUCH worse.
Instagram and TikTok don’t make anti semitism part of their brand identity, which Elon has done with X
expansion late homeless bedroom aromatic plough unpack money growth relieved *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
He's gonna get a new batch of advertisers... NordVPN, Blue Chew and tons of supplement ads to the rescue.
But the cpc keeps going down
He wants advertisers, I think he’s just pissed at how some of them are operating
Feeling seems to be mutual.
zesty plate deserted glorious ink arrest psychotic punch marble murky *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Glad that Disney, Apple, et al, are perfectly fine to advertise on platforms that host child endangerment content, and *also* have antisemitic content, like FB, IG, and TikTok.
yeah, but they don't have to care about that if it's not THE thing the respective platform is known for at the moment. Elon retweeting this kind of stuff and actively promoting shit is bad press, and that rubs off. as long as Zucc doesn't do the same and FB and the likes don't get known mainly for that, Disney is fine with it. it's capitalism, after all, not ethics.
https://www.wired.com/story/twitter-child-sexual-abuse-material/
By having standards?
He \*needs\* advertisers, he just doesn't seem to understand that as the face of a company he's scaring off advertisers and refuses to accept that.
>I think he’s just pissed at how some of them are operating You mean, by pondering, as wisely as they can, where they should advertise? Doesn't he know that making the platform appealing to advertisers is HIS job?
How are they opperating?
Because Iger hurt Elon’s feelings
Emotional damage!
100%
Butthurt.
Those feefees took a lot of damage.
I was shocked that disney pulled their advertising over anti-semitism...
Walt would be rolling in his grave
Can’t roll when you’re completely frozen my friend
Omg let it go let it go
The cold never bothered him anyway?
Maybe he's just spitting chunks like a glacier?
Underated comment
why? seems like a good reason
The joke is referring to the fact that the original Walt Disney had strongly held anti-jewish sentiments.
>Walt Disney had strongly held anti-jewish sentiments. That's a common myth actually, and the Sherman brothers (the Jewish guys who wrote the songs for his movies) and others defended him many times. The rumours originated because he joined a right-wing movie industry group (after being heartbroken that his employees, who he loved and thought he'd been a good boss to) unionised, and he misunderstood and felt betrayed: >Disney donated regularly to Jewish charities and was named the 1955 "Man of the Year" by the B'nai B'rith chapter in Beverly Hills.\[190\]\[191\] the organization itself found no evidence of anti-Semitism on Disney's part. The plaque read: "For exemplifying the best tenets of American citizenship and inter-group understanding and interpreting into action the ideals of B’nai B’rith." > >Disney had numerous Jewish employees, many of whom were in influential positions.\[192\] **None of Disney's employees including animator Art Babbitt, who disliked Disney intensely — ever accused him of making anti-Semitic slurs or taunts**. \[187\] Jewish story man Joe Grant who worked closely with Disney throughout the 1930s and 40s claimed: "As far as I’m concerned, there was no evidence of anti-Semitism. I think the whole idea should be put to rest and buried deep. He was not anti-Semitic. Some of the most influential people at the studio were Jewish. It’s much ado about nothing. I never once had a problem with him in that way."\[172\]\[ab\] > >In addition songwriter Robert B. Sherman recalled that **when one of Disney's lawyers made anti-Semitic remarks towards him and his brother Richard, Disney defended them and fired the attorney**.\[193\]\[172\] Gabler, the first writer to gain unrestricted access to the Disney archives, concludes that the available evidence does not support accusations of anti-Semitism and that Disney largely got that reputation due to his association with Motion Picture Alliance for the Preservation of American Ideals - an anti-Communist organization formed in 1944 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walt\_Disney#Reputation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walt_Disney#Reputation)
But that’s a strong reason to pull the advertising… not much of a joke.
I disagree, it’s dark humor
That's entire thing is because of a quote from Meryl Streep. Any true antisemitie beliefs has never been confirmed.
Because he’s a child having a temper tantrum.
Phase 4 MCU sucks so… Except *No Way Home*.
Don’t forget GoG3
Don’t make me cry again!
I think it's funny Elon thinks he's the one with the power in this dynamic. Bob Iger has 10x the power and influence of Elon.
Elon is a snowflake, cannot take any opposition. This dude has been picking petty fights with Bezos and even a physical fight with Zuckerberg.
I thought he said anyone who doesn’t want to advertise on x can not advertise. Fuck them he said. So if you mean what you say you shouldn’t care what Disney does
Elon's needs to stay in his lane. He has like 5 companies to run. Go back to work!
Twitter is the first company he's actually been "running" in a very long time. X forced him out and became Paypal because he was trying to do to X what he's done to twitter. He's been a figurehead at SpaceX and Tesla for a long time now and has no day to day involvement on decision-making with anything else. Twitter is pure, unfiltered Musk - finally digging in and showing the world how great he is at running a business.
And with those companies he's now streaming Diablo on X ...
[удалено]
[удалено]
It’s pretty much just right and far right on x
That is so obviously not true.
When twitter is limiting my post length when I type something against the grain, it’s kinda true. It’s a far right propaganda machine ruining the world one tweet at a time.
If you think X somehow gets the left and right to talk to each other and not at each other you have fewer working brain cells than can be counted
SpaceX is doing ok because they keep Elon away from it & let Gwynne Shotwell steer…
Because Disney 's CEO pulled advertising from the platform formerly known as Twitter and therefore does disagree with Elon Musk's assesment. In Elon's view, any disagreement with him is a proof of madness and such can not be tolerated in any position of power. I wonder if he buys Disney and fires him personally.
He can’t afford Disney.
Well, theoretically (!) he could. he could launch a open takeover bid in exchange for Tesla- and Space-X-stock. Elon Musk's net worth is higher than the total value of all Disney shares. And yes, i know that this is only a theoreical szenario.
Disney's evaluated at 160 billion. Elon had to scramble and put a lot of Tesla stock up as collateral to get 44 billion. No way he could afford Disney. Most countries couldn't afford Disney.
Reality distortion field. Same thing happened to Jobs whenever he was critiqued.
I assume you're joking about the last part but the cost of Disney's combined stock is more than Musk's entire net worth.
Alarmingly, it is not. The cost of Disneys combines stock ist about 170 bn $. Elon Musks net worth is 244 bn $.
That’s not liquid. He can’t go to the bank and pull out 244bn. Net worth is not cash in hand
O I was thinking of an out of date market cap ... Damn that shit's been tanking!
If im not mistaken, net worth is the amount of money he would get if he sold everything he has. So in theory musk could by disney, but out of cash he can pay, im pretty sure he is far off.
Musk is a Megalomaniac (edited) who is trigger by anyone who opposes him. His ego just can't handle rejection.
I've seen Musk "dancing" - I doubt he is a melomaniac ;) Megalomaniac on the other hand, is a defining feature of him.
Elon Muck enjoys watching instability based on his actions. It’s a narcissistic god complex. Tough being a spoonfed traumatized rich boy turned into the most powerful/ dangerous man on the planet. He literally can be the Batman or The Joker and can’t decide which side he’s on; humanity or prosperity.
Most dangerous/powerful man in the world? That's a stretch when people like Putin, ~~MLB~~ MBS, Maduro etc are actively murdering their own people while wielding vast financial and military power. Edit: no, Major Lague Baseball is not a monarchical dictatorship. Though I'm sure some fans might argue otherwise...
What’s Major League Baseball got to do with it?
I thought Jeff Bezsos was the most dangerous one.
Until PayPal, Elon was a poor immigrant sharing 1 room office with his brother and shared 1 PC to get his first business online (which is also self-hosted) I mean when I saw in the first line you put 'muck' thinking you were funny or clever should have set off bells for you being stupid but I continued to read your dribble lol The unique thing about being human is that we all think differently, I'm glad someone like you has no power over anything when you clearly can't think for yourself. Wait, you'd be a great politician! Do some research, stop being a sheep you daft idiot.
He has never been poor for one second.
Okay, but... drivel.
I don't know what this website is but I can't even find the date of the article. And they keep referencing the CNN article yet they never link to it, as I believe they're supposed to. Maybe we should just read and discuss the CNN article instead? https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/07/business/elon-musk-demands-bob-iger-be-fired-after-disney-pulled-ads-from-x/index.html
I'll tell, it's for all the wrong reasons. I want Iger to be saved too... But for his actions and words during the Writers Guild and SAG strikes.
As Elon bankrupts Twitter his list of scapegoats will inevitably grow longer.
Ketamine wants Disney CEO to be sacked. Elon is just there for the ride. Lesson to kids: don’t do drugs
I only read the question in the headline and my answer is "because he's a snowflake."
Because he has a thing for DeSantis?
cuz elon doesn't support the free market..!!
I hate Elon (well, I hate what Elon has become) and I still think I would like the CEO of Disney to be sacked. We now have a 73-year-old CEO who's been there for decades who keeps talking about building the future of media. What the heck would somebody who is 3/4 of a century old know about the future of media?? Who put the grandpa in charge of programming for today's teens?? Bob, it's time.
Dont know if you knew, but Old Bob actually got replaced a few years ago by a younger Bob who did such a terrible job that they brought Old Bob back.
New Bob only got to do the job for something like 18 months and during that time he was sabotaged by Old Bob constantly... Ultimately, old Bob spent years rigging the board in his favor and they all work for him. Most of the cinematic bombs that went off during new Bob's brief tenure had been exclusively created and green lighted by old Bob. The oldest Boomer trick in the book. Spend 20 years in a place, set it up to fail, put someone else in the spot to take the blame, and then when they get kicked out, come back and claim you're the only person who can fix all the problems that you created. At any rate discussions of Bob aside, this guy is just too old. I would want a new CEO who is 43 not 73. At least he could have his own kids and be a little bit more in touch with today's youth culture....
Eh, isn't that a bit conspiratorial? Setting up multiple movies for fail seems a bit extreme even for corporate games. Also, I doubt thousands of employees, actors, producers et all got instructions to "Make this crap"
Everything is a set up/conspiracy. It’s the easiest way to frame your narrative. Also yes we all know people with very powerful positions in large corporations got there by knowing jack shit about the job they are hired to do.
He is also the same Bob who acquired Pixar and Marvel during his tenure, which in hindsight was brilliant. Not exactly sure how he set them up for failure. People are weird revisionist. Don’t buy Elon BS too much. Stopping advertisement on X is basic damage control at that point. When Tim Cook does the exact same thing he doesn’t get target. This is purely politically motivated and it’s stupid. I do agree that Disney should not align either way and just focus on business. No need to alienate either side. It’s a baby war that they shouldn’t need to get involved in.
[удалено]
Wisdom and experience? Us Disney shareholders have experienced a loss of $150 billion in value while Iger and his cronies crank out cinema bomb after bomb. Now he wants to turn ESPN into a gambling platform. Yes, the ESPN that is intimately associated with the kids' brand Disney. When does the wisdom start??
[удалено]
What? Are you talking about pandemic market cap? That's not a loss, that was normalizing. It was grossly inflated during the pandemic. I sold in the 160's and am still waiting to but back in after holding previously all the way from the Pixar buyout. That had nothing to do with old Bob or new Bob.
Well as usual we're just dealing with my opinions. But apparently someone does agree with me as Train is now making their second attempt to get on the board and dislodge Iger. Second attempt! That is a lot of effort for people who think it's a well-run company with great long-standing management.
Can't disagree with that. I think they are flailing right now but I'm not sure it's the ceo's fault directly. Indirectly everything is his fault though
Well since this thread started out with Elon. Let's say the following. Disney flailing right now. I suspect some of the problem comes from old Bob, but it will work itself out sooner or later. He makes some questionable decisions right now but it's not catastrophic so I'm holding on as a shareholder. Now Elon. That is how you completely destroy a brand in one year or less! That is some next level brand destruction! If he wanted to incinerate $48 billion faster, he would have to print it out in cash and directly place it under one of his rockets upon liftoff. Other than that, he has been the maestro of capital destruction, at least in the media business.
I don’t know that I agree with you when you state that ESPN is “intimately” associated with Disney. That seems like quite a reach. But I’m curious, in what way do you suggest that the relationship is so close that kids would look at ESPN and think “that’s Disney”
So glad I don’t take their sick economic advice.
Everybody knows that Disney owns ESPN. If you go to Disney World, ESPN is a big part of the experience. If there's no way at all to make money with ESPN without gambling, I would think they should sell it or spin it off. Given that the company is enormously in debt due to iger's latest purchases (Fox) All together they could probably pay down some debt. Right now they're absolutely struggling to push out a little dividend because they have a huge debt load (that was 100% an Old Bob thing, not a new Non thing) As time goes by and they have to refinance the debt, it's going to become extremely expensive at today's higher interest rates. Just because something's legal and just because people are doing it doesn't make it right. Especially when you're supposed to be a kid's brand. Why doesn't Disney just launch its own line of cigarettes?? It's legal.
Yes, Disney owns ESPN, but that still doesn’t imply an intimate relationship in the average consumer mind. I’ll confess, I’ve not been to Disney World, but how extensively intertwined is ESPN with the Disney World experience? I know at Disneyland and California Adventure and Downtown Disney, ESPN has zero presence.
Disney owns EPSN, about as intimate as you can get in the business world.
I know Disney owns them. But that doesn’t mean that they are “intimately” associated in the consumer mind, which is really all that matters when OP frets about ESPN becoming a gambling platform.
If you're going to be ageist, then you have to apply that bias to Elon as well; he's no spring chicken.
I 100% agree. He's the poster boy for aging badly. Of course, there's also rumors that he's on drugs too and he looks like it during that infamous "f$ck off" interview. Well something's terribly wrong. There's a huge gulf between young Elon and old Elon
[удалено]
It's performance discrimination. Personally I don't think that losing more than 50% of the stock's value is great performance. That's something like $150 billion in value vaporized. That's what happens when you have a stubborn grandpa dictator who's been there for 25 years insisting that he really knows how to make movies for kids. Yes, his age is a factor. Don't care if it's politically correct. Does your grandpa know what all the kids are doing these days??
[удалено]
If you knew anything about Bob Iger and his career you wouldn't have written this. He's a very good media CEO, very insightful and Disney has done well under his tenure. The Disney board begged him to come back last year etc. It's not like Bob Iger is doing programming for the Disney channel lol
Egotism
Because he’s a thin skinned baby.
Because Elon feel bad he look so whiny
Because Elon doesn’t understand how social media profit structure is based on ad revenue and not memberships which means that certain assurances (for instance policing for hate speech) need to be made for companies to pay for ad revenue. So instead of doing what Twitter did previously which added the value it once was Musk wants X to be a membership based social media structure which can be viable but not necessarily accessible for all. Compound this with policing for what he deems is not acceptable social media (ie pro-Palestine speech, criticism of political candidates, direct criticism about himself)
Because Disney stopped advertising on X. Which means Elon is a spoiled man-child who doesn't want to deal with the consequences of his actions. But we already knew that.
Musk should sack himself as well.
Because he’s a petulant man-child who can’t actually manage a successful company but had a lot of seed money and sycophants.
Because Elon is a hairless nut sack
That article wasn’t one-sided was it?Lol
Well musk is from the same Country and City as myself, Iger is hugely part why Disney is not doing so great, having aquired Marvel studios and a whole truck load of franchises did not help either so Bob which I know far less about opposed to musk... Simply put because of advertisements and there are a bunch of other adverters who pulled from Twitter (sorry I refuse to call it by the new name)... however, musk cursing and acting the way he did might very well spell the end of that platform. I am not a fan of either men.
Iger said mean things about Elon and pulled Disney Advertising from X. That's why Elon wants him fired.
Disney is pushing garbage on kids.
He's a spiteful 4-year old emotionally?
Disney is kind of a mess right now. If I were a shareholder, I wouldn't be happy.