Rule of Tod Video Roundup

Jaybird in reply to Kazzy says:

For you they will. I hope that you will pipe up if someone up says something like “THE POINT IS SOMETHING ELSE!” after I point these out.

Anyway. Here here’s the SEC report:

Walt Disney released an SEC report.

Page 18 contains this interesting section:

We face risks relating to misalignment with public and consumer tastes and preferences for entertainment, travel and consumer products, which impact demand for our entertainment offerings and products and the profitability of any of our businesses.
Our businesses create entertainment, travel and consumer products whose success depends substantially on consumer tastes and preferences that change in often unpredictable ways. The success of our businesses depends on our ability to consistently create compelling content, which may be distributed, among other ways, through broadcast, cable, theaters, internet or mobile technology, and used in theme park attractions, hotels and other resort facilities and travel experiences and consumer products. Such distribution must meet the changing preferences of the broad consumer market and respond to competition from an expanding array of choices facilitated by technological developments in the delivery of content. The success of our theme parks, resorts, cruise ships and experiences, as well as our theatrical releases, depends on demand for public or out-of-home entertainment experiences. Demand for certain out-of-home entertainment experiences, such as theater-going to watch movies, has not returned to pre-pandemic levels. In addition, many of our businesses increasingly depend on acceptance of our offerings and products by consumers outside the U.S. The success of our businesses therefore depends on our ability to successfully predict and adapt to changing consumer tastes and preferences outside as well as inside the U.S. Moreover, we must often invest substantial amounts in content production and acquisition, acquisition of sports rights, launch of new sports-related studio programming, theme park attractions, cruise ships or hotels and other facilities or customer facing platforms before we know the extent to which these products will earn consumer acceptance, and these products may be introduced into a significantly different market or economic or social climate from the one we anticipated at the time of the investment decisions. Generally, our revenues and profitability are adversely impacted when our entertainment offerings and products, as well as our methods to make our offerings and products available to consumers, do not achieve sufficient consumer acceptance. Further, consumers’ perceptions of our position on matters of public interest, including our efforts to achieve certain of our environmental and social goals, often differ widely and present risks to our reputation and brands. Consumer tastes and preferences impact, among other items, revenue from advertising sales (which are based in part on ratings for the programs in which advertisements air), affiliate fees, subscription fees, theatrical film receipts, the license of rights to other distributors, theme park admissions, hotel room charges and merchandise, food and beverage sales, sales of licensed consumer products or sales of our other consumer products and services.

“Further, consumers’ perceptions of our position on matters of public interest, including our efforts to achieve certain of our environmental and social goals, often differ widely and present risks to our reputation and brands.”

In the past, when we’ve had discussions of people no longer consuming products, it’s devolved into accusations against the people no longer consuming the products.

I’m guessing that we are nowhere near unique in this.

This little nugget in the SEC report seems to hint that, maybe, they’re considering going a different direction than blaming the people who used to consume the product but now no longer consume the product or consume the product less.

And here’s Bob himself:

Bob Iger says creators at Disney have lost sight of what their jobs should be, entertain first, not messages.

He adds that stories infused with “positive messages for the world” can be great but that it shouldn’t be the primary job.

(Source: @sherman4949) pic.twitter.com/h7qKyqJE05

— DiscussingFilm (@DiscussingFilm) November 29, 2023

Report

Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

Frozen made approximately one bajillion dollars.

It’s not a particularly good example.

The live-action Little Mermaid turned a profit as well. (Though, I’ll grant, the returns were disappointing. Not hugely disappointing, but disappointing.)

You know what might make a good example? The recent “Marvels” movie.

Did you see it? I didn’t. Were you participating in the organic boycott of the flick?Report

Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

I tend to agree with what Bob Iger said.

What is kinda obvious though is that if the movies were good, it’d *ONLY* be the socially conservative people not seeing them.

As it is, they’re pushing crappy message movies instead of quality message movies.

It’d be a lot easier to yell at the conservatives not seeing the movies if they were missing out.

As it is, even you, their defender, doesn’t want to see them. Not badly enough to drop your entertainment dollars on them, anyway.Report

Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

*I* wouldn’t say that they’re a villain. I would say that they’re experiencing a disconnect between the movies they want to make and the movies that the audience wants to buy tickets to.

I suppose that you could say “THIS IS THE FAULT OF THE AUDIENCE!” but, honestly, it’s *THEIR* freakin’ money. If they want to drop it on something else, there is no shortage of other stuff out there to spend your money and attention on.

The fact that conservatives aren’t the only ones complaining about the quality should be an indicator that there is more going on here than the hurt fee-fees of incels who are sick and tired of black people in their Star War space operas.Report

Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

My point is that conservatives are refusing to patronize Disney because of the socially liberal messages in their media.

I assure you: Conservatives still have copies of Frozen on Blu-Ray on their shelves next to a DVD of Frozen and that’s next to a VHS of Frozen.

Sure, maybe they’re not watching the new stuff, but, and here’s the point, there’s a *LOT* of people not watching the new stuff.

Like, to the point where they’re talking about it in their financials.Report

Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

That’s not my first result. My first result is this one.

It says this:

Every man in the movie is a villain except Kristoff. He is the only half-way decent guy—and if you pay close attention you will hear what they really think of him in the song Fixer Upper. We learn that Kristoff was raised by trolls and in the song we get the rest of his qualifications. His walk is clumpy, his talk is grumpy and he has funny shaped feet. And though he washes, he ends up smelly. On the positive side “you’ll never meet a fella who’s as sensitive and sweet.” (these are not exactly manly virtues) They go on to explain that he is a fixer upper—he has flaws. He is likely to run scared, he is socially impaired and he “tinkles in the woods.”

If this isn’t insulting enough, they add this final insinuation that he is afflicted with the proclivity for bestiality. Perhaps the worst words in the whole movie are that he has a “peculiar brain, dear” and that he has a “thing for the reindeer that’s outside a few of nature’s laws.”

Is that accurate? I don’t remember that line in the movie…

Huh. It is in there.

Well, you have to understand…Report

Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

So it did happen, but it’s good, actually?

That normally takes longer.Report

Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

See, you’re accusing them of saying that Disney is “promoting” but that’s not what they’re saying.

I can post what the article says again, if you’d like:

If this isn’t insulting enough, they add this final insinuation that he is afflicted with the proclivity for bestiality. Perhaps the worst words in the whole movie are that he has a “peculiar brain, dear” and that he has a “thing for the reindeer that’s outside a few of nature’s laws.”

Heck, I just watched the scene again and my take is not that the movie is “promoting” bestiality but they put that joke in there for the grownups and it would sail right over the little kids’ heads.

And I could see how someone who takes the joke and says “that’s not funny!” deserves mockery.

I mean, as jokes go, it’s not a *BAD* joke. Kinda funny. (And you can tell that the trolls see the guy really affectionately and they’re tweaking him rather than making an accurate statement about him).

But there are people out there who just don’t have senses of humor.

And, wouldn’t you know it, most of them end up as critics, for some reason.

But I digress.

You’re saying they accused Disney of something that they didn’t accuse Disney of.

You should have better sources than the ones you pick. The ones you pick keep tickling your priors and that should be a red flag for you, not a reason to scream FULL SPEED AHEAD! and post it as if it accurately represented reality.Report

Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

The joke was one that treated bestiality lightly.

That was, in fact, the joke.

And what phrase did he use?

“treat homosexuality or bestiality in a light sort of way”.

From there, I’d say that I covered this above.Report