The Little Mermaid Remake is Officially a Major Flop!

I kinda wanna see who takes this bait (pun very much intended), but - for the record - see https://www.boxofficemojo.com/release/rl1913750273/

"Woke Disney."

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

lads, did you know beating the hell out of nazis is woke?

I am down for inevitable The Little Mermaid “live action” sequel, where Ariel and Eric adopt Ursula’s dark powers to sink German U-boats during World War II.

With a cameo appearance by a digitally de-aged Harrison Ford as Indiana Jones because, synergy.

Not really keen on live action re-makes of animation movies. Particularly if they stray too far from the original concept. Disney appear to want to re-write storylines and re-cast live versions to make them more inclusive or more appealing to a broader fan base. But one size does not fit all.
Anyway the live actions don't work for me. I don't want a director's view of how an animated character might be if made into a real person. I prefer my own take on things.
Perhaps they should keep as close to the originals as possible if they must re-make them whilst being more creative and inclusive with new projects going forward.
I can't begin to imagine what they might do to a live action Snow White with seven dwarfs to play around with. The mind boggles.

Saw the headline and immediately knew (without looking) who composed the post.

Disney Studios is getting hoisted by its own petard -- Disney+. We enjoyed 'Lightyear' -- watched it on Disney+. We enjoyed 'Black Panther: Wakanda Forever' -- watched it on Disney+. This weekend we will check out Avatar: The Wat of Water' -- watching it on Disney+

The box office receipts will never be the same when consumers know they can see them on the streaming service that they are already paying for.

Having said that, Disney still leads all other studios (for seven straight years) when it comes to gross receipts. Disney isn't the only studio with box office challenges.

“Walt Disney's Pixar Animation Studios has eliminated 75 positions including those of two executives behind box office disappointment “Lightyear,” sources said on Saturday, the first significant job cuts at the studio in a decade.”
“The cuts included "Lightyear" director Angus MacLane…”
“Galyn Susman, producer of "Lightyear," also departed.“
“Michael Agulnek, Pixar's vice president of worldwide publicity since 2015, was also laid off...”
https://www.reuters.com/business/walt-disneys-pixar-animation-eliminates-75-positions-2023-06-03/

Who should Disney fire next?

I think TH brings up a key point here. The speed with which big-screen features are reaching streaming services, paid subscribers have no incentive to venture out to pay to watch a movie in a theater, and actually have a vested interest in waiting for those features to reach the streaming services that they're subscribed to.

This is the reality of the entertainment industry today, and I think every studio is trying to figure out what to do, and are trying various strategies in order to maximize their revenue. I've noticed that recent marketing for Elemental is really leaning into 3-D, which is a format that was all but dead before the pandemic. However, in an effort to juice the appeal of seeing a feature in the theaters, Disney/Pixar are highlighting the format, which is a way that most current home theaters are ill-equipped to present.

To top everything off, the WGA strike and authorization from SAG-AFTRA to also strike this summer will only add to the pain for not just Disney, but all of the studios. I do wonder if the writers and actors understand the chaos they are inflicting on not just the studios, but the entire industry that they rely upon for their living. While I do think there are some ingrained unfairness in the way in which people that work in the creative fields are compensated, the current actions is biting the hand that feeds them, and could result in a situation where even fewer people can be successful in the entertainment field. I think we might be at or really close to a watershed moment for the entertainment industry, and it will be really interesting to see how things shake out this summer.

Hold onto your butts!!

The Little Mermaid isn't a flop because of "woke Disney". Its not making as much because since the pandemic people aren't going to the theatres as much anymore. I hardly call a movie that's made $326 million so far a flop btw. We didn't bother going to any of the new Marvel movies either which normally I would have been on the first or second day. Now I much prefer watching them on Disney+ at home with my Costco popcorn :)

I agree with Rob P, just not a fan of the live-action adaptations, don't see the real point of them. Also some can be just bad (Lion King,Pinocchio) while even the better ones like Cinderella just lack the flair of the original. I can get the studios wanting to try it out but "Mermaid" shows how the original hand-drawn puts CGI to shame in stuff so just never interested in them. I'm sure I'm not the only one feeling that way so another reason not to spend money seeing it in theaters.

@MikeW -- Same with me, all though we just don't go to the theatre anymore I have no interest in the remakes either. I will watch them on Disney+ but I will not pay theatre pricing to see them.

The Little Mermaid, initially expected to make $800m-$1B, then downgraded to make between $600m-$750m after it’s first showings, and now might not even break $400m, is a major flop. It’s bombing and Disney will lose millions $$$ because of it.

Avatar Way of Water box office - $2.32B
Top Gun 2 box office - $1.49B
Super Mario Bros. box office - $1.31B
Black Panther Wakanda Forever - $859m
Looks like people are still going to the movies. Its just that woke doesn’t sell.

Who should Disney fire next?

@TH, Disney leading in terms of gross receipts doesn’t really help them much when their films are costing $200+ million to make and lord knows how much hundreds of millions more to market. Whatever gross a movie makes, it has to be distributed amongst the theaters and talent incentives.

@ JT: I am well aware that gross revenue has nothing to do with overall performance. But it still shows that there is a substantial number of people (worldwide) that are interested in Disney's content. Take TLM's domestic haul of $200 million and divide it by the 2022 average movie ticket price ($11.75) and that means 17.1 million people have seen it in the U.S. alone. Lifting a line from Francis 24 "I would hardly call that a flop".

Second, while I readily acknowledge the financial losses, in 2022, Disney was the box office leader. They sold more tickets than any of their competitors -- for the seventh year in a row.

And third, Disney's box office losses are not unique to Disney.

IndieWire: "Warner Bros. Discovery recorded a loss of $2.1 billion in the final quarter of 2022. The previous quarter, WBD lost $2.3 billion; in the one before that, the first in the new company's existence, it lost $3.4 billion." The studio went so far as to destroy its film 'Batgirl' so they could write off the loss.

Hollywood Reporter: "Peacock, the streaming service of Comcast’s entertainment unit NBCUniversal, grew its revenue and subscribers in the fourth quarter, but its loss widened again compared with the year-ago period. In a conference call, management reiterated that the streamer’s loss would peak this year (2023), predicting a loss of $3 billion." And add into that Comcast's loss of 400,000 cable subscribers -- who cut the cord and ain't coming back.

Anecdotally, read the posts here. Francis 24: "Its not making as much because since the pandemic people aren't going to the theatres as much anymore." The same poster continues: "all though we just don't go to the theatre anymore I have no interest in the remakes either. I will watch them on Disney+ but I will not pay theatre pricing to see them."

Russell: "I think TH brings up a key point here. The speed with which big-screen features are reaching streaming services, paid subscribers have no incentive to venture out to pay to watch a movie in a theater, and actually have a vested interest in waiting for those features to reach the streaming services that they're subscribed to."

And please, everyone note how Francis 24 and MikeW point out that they just don't like the live action remakes. It has nothing to do with the mythical "woke" content.

No one is paying $40+ to take their family of four to a theater selling $12 bowls of popcorn and $8 sodas when they can inevitably watch the same film at home, spend pennies on snacks and hit the pause button if they need to use the restroom.

It can depend on the movie as do enjoy seeing several on the big screen and a couple I'll catch at home and wish I saw in theaters. But honestly, the only live-action take on a Disney film I've seen is "Maleficent," not the various animated ones. It's nothing to do with "woke," just not appealing to me, that's the end of it.

Exactly. It depends on the movie. Sometimes people want to see it on the big screen. In the case of the live-action version of TLM, so far in the United States, it seems that more than 17 million people want to see it on the big screen.

Cheers!

oh by the way I'll believe the Disney "woke" theory when they turn one of their classic prince's gay and make that into a love story. Now I'd pay to go to theatre to see that. Image it! Prince Charming and Chad... lol :)

There is simply nothing "woke" about the Little Mermaid. Most people aren't going to it cause it just looks bad with all the CG.

“Yes, it’s awful,
Pushing woke crap onto children,
Elemental will fail too,
And Dial of Destiny also.
Mermaid will finish in the red,
Woke and broke Disney’s about dead,
Go on and fire more execs.

(Sing with me now)
Sha-la-la-la-la-la
My oh my,
Look at woke Disney die,
It’s time to fire more execs. (woah, woah)
Sha-la-la-la-la-la
Ain't that sad?
Ain't it a shame? Too bad,
Disney’s gotta fire more execs.”

(Chuckle)

Man, what a sad and pathetic person you are. I really hope your kid is able to somehow able to turn out to be a decent human being despite his old man.

Also, I think you should have a battery of neurological tests done, because I really believe that, in addition to your rampant homophobia, racism, and just all around general bigotry, you may be suffering from some kind of major brain damage.

More of the same from TheOldCream, insults, false accusations and overall nothing of substance. With this, you get what you deserve, zero regard for your opinion. I’m sure you’ve gotten used to this though, this isn’t the first time this has happened and it won’t be the last.

That you think Disney is going broke is more laughable than your attempts at music writing.

MikeW, I would not be surprised if Disney sells LucasFilm back to George Lucas at a loss.

This kind of shoots down any exclusivity that Disney allegedly maintains when it comes to the whole "producing woke content" school-of-thought nonsense. From Ethan Alter at Yahoo Entertainment: "Five years ago, the one-two punch of mega-hits Black Panther and Aquaman changed the game for cinematic blockbusters starring heroes of color. And that seismic shift is being reflected in this summer's box-office returns. First, Vin Diesel and his multicultural Fast and Furious familia raced to pole position over the May 19 weekend. Those speed racers were followed by Halle Bailey's star turn in The Little Mermaid, which swam to a $118 million first-place finish over the Memorial Day holiday. And last weekend, Shameik Moore's Miles Morales swung Across the Spider-Verse to land at the top the box office with a massive $120 million gross — the best opening weekend of any movie so far this summer. That trend continues with the just-released Transformers: Rise of the Beasts; the seventh installment in the Transformers series is also the franchise's most diverse entry yet, with In the Heights's Anthony Ramos and Project Power's Dominique Fishback playing the Brooklyn-based humans tapped to fight alongside Hasbro's giant transforming robots. The movie grossed $25 million on its opening day, indicating that Rise of the Beasts will likely become the fourth blockbuster in a row starring actors of color to nab the top spot at the box office. Furthermore the top three films in the country — Transformers, Spider-Verse and The Little Mermaid — will all star Black and Latino heroes, a too-rare occurrence in Hollywood."

Riiiiiight, Disney gives up the merchandising cash cow that is Star Wars to hand it back to the guy pushing 80 who's repeatedly said he's done with it. Makes perfect sense.

And of course the whole premise of this thread is flawed. Was Mr. Schneider involved in the production meetings at Disney and can confirm that Ms. Bailey was picked solely to meet some diversity requirements and had nothing to do with any talent she might have possessed?

Having seen the film, I can confirm that she's got some major pipes. If someone is blasting a company for being "woke" simply for casting a non-white person in a lead role, then I guess it speaks more about that individual than it does Disney.

I'm pretty sure they went for red-haired actresses first or at least someone who could dye it but then decided to go for the best singer they could find.

Without getting involved in a debate. The whole "woke" issue, in a nutshell, concerns the awareness of inequality.
Even so it shouldn't deny anyone the right to the freedom of expressing their opinion.
There appear to be differing views here about the rationale for the casting of Ariel in this re-make. It isn't beyond the realms of possibility that this was carried out by Disney with one eye on inclusivity but that equally doesn't mean that the actress wasn't more than qualified to play the role.
I , personally , think it shouldnt have been made at all but in doing it they should've at least tried to replicate the animated version as closely as possible. If that was then perceived as being non-inclusive then so be it.

The movie has grossed over ONE-THIRD OF A BILLION DOLLARS - IN TWO WEEKS! That is not even close to being a flop.

It appears term flop is relative as the movie has already made $350 million in just its first week, and that number obviously doesn't include any merchandise or ancillaries. Considering it cost $200 million to make (estimated $250 million total marketing) it has already cleared $100 million in straight profit in just its first week...if you compare that to like 99% of movies ever made, that would be considered really damn good.

When I think of the whole mythology of being "woke" (defined as "an alleged, sudden awareness of social inequities exploited by talentless, unqualified political figures as means of winning support from small-minded people") I was struck by this exchange from an April 2010 episode of '30 Rock':

Tracy: Nah, You can play it off. But I know you're all secretly mad because we finally have a black Disney princess.
Jenna: You know, there actually hasn't been a white princess since 1991.
Pete: Tiana, Mulan, Pocahontas, Jasmine. Wow, she's right.

Not sure how accurate it is ... But it's funny.

(Chuckle)

By the way, there is something also to be said about the box office economics as it relates to the extension of the character/franchise. As the_man2 points out, the box office receipts only represent a portion of the revenue earned and "doesn't include any merchandise or ancillaries". Likewise, because Disney owns the rights to the music and characters there are no costs associated with licensing. Some might label this a "re-make". I would consider it a broadening and expansion of a successful product.

One last thing, as it relates to consumer habits and the hit that box office receipts are taking from streaming services. Last night, we watched that Universal Studios, box office tour-de-force ($25 million -- worldwide) 'Renfield' at home on 'Peacock'. Today we will sit back on the couch and watch Disney/Fox's 'Avatar: The Way of Water' ($2.3 billion -- worldwide). And some time down the road we will likely be back in the living room watching the 2023 edition of Disney's 'The Little Mermaid'.

By the way, will KS be going after Comcast for its "woke" use of an Asian American woman to play a lead role as a police officer in 'Renfield'?

Good points made by TH regarding the ethnicity of Disney Princesses since 1991.
It made me wonder for a moment if it would test Disney's resolve if it was suggested that any live action movie re-make of Princess and The Frog, for example, was re-cast with a blonde blue eyed Tiana.
Seemingly preposterous, I know, but might it not demonstrate that inclusivity is a two way street ?

Update: The film has now earned $414,210,339.

A couple of thoughts...

Some of us are arguing about the suitability of the ethniticity of the actress portraying the Little Mermaid. Has it occurred to anybody that the Little Mermaid is supposed to be from an entirely different although mythical species?

My biggest reason for not going to the movie theater these days is being forced to pick my seats at the point of purchase. I miss the "Oh, hell no, I'm not sitting there!" conversations with my wife from the bottom of the stairs at the cinema.

I, for one, fully support the hiring of actual mermaids as studio executives. Given mermaids' established (lack of) negotiating skills, the WGA and SAG/AFTRA should roll them in no time flat, allowing the industry to get back to work.

^ What he said, yeah.

>>Some of us are arguing about the suitability of the ethniticity of the actress portraying the Little Mermaid. Has it occurred to anybody that the Little Mermaid is supposed to be from an entirely different although mythical species?

Indeed. The problem isn't that she's black, it's that she's not green.

Gotta give props to Keith for starting this thread that is pushing 40 replies.

I mean, I did have high hopes when I saw the title, but nevertheless I am impressed…

Unfortunately, the international market is rejecting The Little Mermaid.
What is the whole world trying to tell Disney?

https://screenrant.com/the-little-mermaid-remake-box-office-disney-1-billion/

"Woke". The rallying cry of the sparsely educated.

Disney just green light a new Little Mermaid series, "Disney's Junior Ariel". The next live action remake is Bambi.

In terms of box office, it's doing mid tier business. It actually was the 5th best Memorial day weekend ever, so there was interest.

This is an extraordinary day in TPI history. I actually agree with Keith Schneider the 'The Little Mermaid' most likely underperformed expectations. And I also agree with NB that this whole "woke" thing is utter nonsense.

(Sniff)

I'm actually a bit choked up ... But only a bit.

NEXT!

@TH, I think it did underperform, but I wouldn't classify it as an all out major flop.

Fast X is REALLY underperforming, Ant-Man: Qauntamania underperformed...but those would be considered underperforms. Movies like Renfeld & the Shazam: Fury sequel are far more likely to be considered "flops" by box office analyst.

When it comes to the live action remakes, Disney should keep the budgets in check...TLM will most likely be a modest success, not hitting the highs of Lion King, Aladdin or Beauty...but also not the lows of Dumbo, Through The Looking Glass, Cruella, etc.

Looks like I came back at the right time. Good Lord

Little Mermaid is (and will) do fine. Its a remake of an animated film. Don't know why Disney keeps doing them since they seem to only do ok.

As for Indiana Jones being woke, it makes me laugh that now we consider that "woke" when its always been about an ANTIFA Archeologist beating up on Fascists from around the globe.

Spiderman just overtook TLM in domestic box office even though it was released a week after. It's gonna leave mermaid in the dust soon. I've seen Across the Spider Verse, I predicted it will rake in more than little mermaid, and I say it's amazingly well deserved, given how good that Spiderman film is.
Plandemic what?
Racist what?
Y'all got no point to argue anymore. The people has spoken. Halle is not Ariel.
Go to "The Numbers" and compare those two films.

@Triun

True true...Those are the facts, but it doesn't mean TLM is a flop. The box office isn't the only difference between the two, it's almost apples & oranges.

Across The Spider-Verse is critically acclaimed, a sequel to a a movie that gained a large following from the first movie & audience reaction is through the roof. Audiences were hyped for this movie even before it got delayed. And Spider-Man, animated or not, has a MUCH wider appeal than Ariel, lol. The anticipation for the Sony PS5 game is high as well.

TLM is aimed at a different audience, and it is somewhat underperforming...but I also would counter its not just because of Halle (even with a different actress the results could still be the same) The film received mixed reviews from critics, is the LONGEST live action Disney remake, and is in a crowded marketplace with films that are being better received.

When it opened, it was the 5th best Memorial Day opening of all time. It made more opening weekend than Aladdin (with Will Smith). So there was definitely audience interest.

Had the movie been critically better (and shorter) & word of mouth was supper great, it would've had bigger numbers. That being said...it still has legs & is performing decently. Pulled over 20 million in week 3 and that's with Transformers & Spiderman, two big IP's in the market place, taking up screens.

It isn't a flop. If the film didn't even crack 150...of yeah, that would be a problem, but it is currently at 236 domestically. Not a massive hit, but certainly not a flop either.

I still say Fast X, with a current domestically take of 139 million is probably the biggest "blockbuster" that's REALLY underperforming. Even Fast 9...released during the pandemic when movie theaters were limiting seats made 179 million domestically.

TLM unfortunately became this social talking point, and people equate its performance with the casting. Some wanting it to be the biggest hit ever & others wanting it to be the biggest flop ever. If it didn't make a billion dollars, those who wanted it to fail would say it is a flop...if it only made 75 million, others would still say it was a massive hit.

It lives in the middle...but Ariel vs Spidey is never going to be a equal fight.

@Triun5490: Take a moment to look up the word "coherent", please.

Keith, We haven't had any communication since Theme Park Apprentice quite a few years ago (and you were a formidable competitor that I respected a great deal!). In this thread, you've used the word "woke" often, but I don't understand what you really mean by it or how you define it. The word is so often misunderstood. Please, and I'm only asking you this to understand what you mean, explain your definition of it. I'm not challenging you, just don't understand what you mean.

Woke - The active promotion of identity-based social justice issues that directly counter perceived insensitivity against progressive ideology.

Woke- a useful catch all term used by people like Keith to identify anything they don’t like.

Just another example of perceived insensitivity.

"Woke"- A cliché, political buzzword that is used by politicians and commentators to win approval from small-minded members of the populace. without having to shoulder the burden of entertaining extended conversations about complex subjects.

'The Flash' limped to a $60 million opening box office. People are not going to the movies anymore -- regardless of who is playing the fish.

Elemental is bombing, Indiana Jones is NEXT…

Um TH, going back to a very old conversation we once had about that saying from George Bernard Shaw about wrestling the pig, I think Keith's got the "Oink!" going on this thread.

At Hillman: Why? Keith is correct. 'Elemental' won't have a big box office. Neither will Indy. Just like 'The Flash'. We have transitioned to a streaming culture. Disney will likely lead all studios in gross box office revenue in 2023 -- for the eighth year in a row. The other box offices will chase Disney ... again.

The only thing Mr. Oink is wrong about is that the floundering box office performances experienced by the studios has something to do with "woke" content.

It does not. And there is no, comprehensive, demographic data (consumer surveys) that proves otherwise.

The “consumer surveys” are the box office numbers. Hello? Again:

Avatar Way of Water box office - $2.32B
Top Gun Maverick box office - $1.49B
Super Mario Bros. box office - $1.32B
Black Panther Wakanda Forever - $859m
Guardians of the Galaxy, Vol. 3 - $821m (and still counting)

People are still going to the movies, they just don’t choose to see woke crap or garbage movies (sorry DC/Flash and Fast X, you sucked).

Why don't you two just sit down and oink out your differences over a Bud Light...

Oh, wait a minute. Better make that a butterbeer.

Funny how Disney is supposedly immune to anti-woke sentiment, it only seems to affect brands like Bud Light, Target and Chick-Fil-A, but certainly not Disney.

So TH, if people aren’t showing up in theaters to watch Disney movies, and Disney+ is losing millions of subscribers every quarter per their last several quarterly reports, how is the Disney Entertainment Division not losing millions if not billions of dollars for the company? And now we go back to the original question, who should Disney fire…NEXT!

Tim, if this were chess, that would be a check.

This whole woke thing is such a smokescreen. As Biden said “I don’t like the term ‘woke’ because I hear, ‘Woke, woke, woke.’ It’s just a term they use, half the people can’t even define it, they don’t know what it is,”

Keith, your argument is crap. You selectively pull out little factoids to support it whilst ignoring fat now compelling evidence.
The movies that you identified as not being woke, 3 of the 5 were from Disney.

Avatar is basically about colonialism and the invaders decimation of a native population - I think that would classify a woke. Black panther has a black woman lead and one again looks at the effect of colonialism on indigenous populations -wouldn't that be woke? Guardians of the galaxy is not overtly role, but has themes against cruelty to animals, human trafficking and experimentation and even features a comic character previously make now portrayed as female.... OMG woke!

The box office this year is 16% off 2019, across the board, so everyone's feeling it. I love that you conveniently ignore Fast X's disappointing return, and ignore Spiderman's great returns - just because they don't fit your narrative.

Seriously, all this hate because a cartoon character with no specific heritage (they're not even human) is cast as a person of colour. You really need to examine what you're priorities are.

grant, starting your argument with a false quote by Biden is bold, and by that I mean foolish. Pinocchio Joe is a terrible president who says and does what he is told, for there are many strings on him.

To repeat, for your knowledge - Woke - The active promotion of identity-based social justice issues that directly counter perceived insensitivity against progressive ideology. Is colonialism an identity-based social justice issue? If so, how?
And don’t kid yourself, Avatar Way of Water, Black Panther Wakanda Forever and Guardians 3 were distributed by Disney, but they were most certainly James Cameron, Ryan Coogler and James Gunn movies. All three, writers and directors for their respective movies, had final say what their movies were going to be about, and they bypassed woke for pure joy, entertainment and at times gravitas. I wish Disney allowed this freedom of expression for more of their movies.

Because a movie has a black female lead does not make it woke. It’s not uncommon either. In the case of Black Panther Wakanda Forever, a black female lead is logical and necessary for the character it is about and the story it is telling. Now, to call one of the white characters in the movie a colonizer in a derogatory sense simply because of the color of his skin is in fact racist. But we’ll let that one slide.

Views against cruelty to animals, human trafficking and experimentation is not woke, it’s just humane. Question grant, do you consider yourself woke? If so, how?

As for Fast X, read up above a couple of comments and you’ll see I address it’s performance directly, “People are still going to the movies, they just don’t choose to see woke crap or garbage movies (sorry DC/Flash and Fast X, you sucked).” Also, Spider-Man is a Sony release, not Disney. So kudos to Sony!

Lastly, pushback on DEI is necessary. To admit that a certain race or gender (and there are only two genders) needs a leg up to succeed is admitting that certain races or genders are superior or inferior to others, and that is most certainly racist. All races and genders in America have equal opportunity. What we don’t have is equal outcome, and that cannot be guaranteed because that all depends on an individual’s ganas.

Oh, did I say Biden? I meant Trump. Trump said that. My mistake.

*Me munching on popcorn watching this fun talk.*

For Elemental, I have no real interest in seeing it and it has zero to do with "woke," just how it doesn't seem up to Pixar's usual standards and figure be on Disney+ in a few months anyway. Plus, same weekend as the Flash, which I figured see just for Keaton as Batman. And now I wish I'd waited for it on streaming.

Because yes, the pandemic changed so much with stuff going faster to streaming places and thus I, someone who adores going to movies, has been watching them less in theaters. That's a game changer and studios are going to have to learn that maybe instead of $200 million spectacles, they're better off with smaller fare that can appeal while waiting longer to put it on streaming. And it has nothing to do with "woke" but economics of the business.

BTW, that "Terrible" President has overseen record job growth, negotiated deals including saving us from debt default and restored respect for the country with our international allies and no, he's not being "controlled" by Democrats, China, George Soros or whatever boogeyman you think secretly run the world.

Regardless of the definition of "woke". it had nothing to do with revenue generated by films and there is zero, published, scientific demographic material, compiled with the specific intention of determining its impact on box office performance, available.

TH, it had nothing, absolutely zero to do with revenue generated by films? You definitively stand by that statement? And if there is no scientific demographic material, then it doesn’t exist? To quote what you said to J.Trexen recently from another story thread on TPI, “Is that really the best ya got?”
TH, watching you trying to defend Disney is about as sad, though predictable, as watching MikeW trying to defend Biden.

Tim Hillman, “Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.” - George Bernard Shaw

BTW, Elemental has officially had the second worst opening weekend in Pixar history.

Check.

You'd be down to two pawns and a bishop against a nearly full row of pieces and still thinking you were about to checkmate opponent.

Hopefully you weren't offended by the reference to the George Bernard Shaw quote about wresting a pig, Keith. I know that TH certainly isn't offended because he's been proudly oinking on this site for decades.

But I will say that you've accomplished something significant here - you've gotten TH to agree with both you and NB in the same post. I almost fell out of my chair when I read that.

BTW. For all of you graduates of the Hillary Clinton "Basket of Deplorables" School of Public Relations, woke is real. The term may be overused and misused, but it is real.

I agree with Hillman. Woke ( as a cliché, political buzzword that is used by politicians and commentators to win approval from small-minded members of the populace. without having to shoulder the burden of entertaining extended conversations about complex subjects.) is absolutely real.

Not sure that was in dispute.

Likewise something KS (nor anyone else) has disputed is that (at least on this thread) there is zero, published, scientific demographic material, compiled with the specific intention of determining its impact on box office performance, available.

Tim, not at all, sometimes I enjoy a good mud fight, especially with the ladies.

MikeW, you haven’t proven a thing except for your support of Biden, which is a joke in itself.

TH, you’re delusional to think that Disney’s wokeness hasn’t affected it’s box office numbers or it’s revenue streams in general. But what else is new.

@KS: And if their "wokeness" (not really a word) were an impact in the box office it could be backed up by focused research -- demographic analysis -- which are not capable of providing.

Meanwhile, other films continue to tank at the box office regardless of KS's assessment of their content.

Variety (06/19/23): "In the lead-up to “The Flash,” executives at Warner Bros. worked hard to convince the public that the film is “one of the greatest superhero movies ever made,” per newly minted DC Studios co-chief James Gunn. Directed by Andy Muschietti, the story picks up as Miller’s Barry Allen a.k.a The Flash travels back in time to prevent his mother’s murder and inadvertently cracks open the DC multiverse. (Cameos abound!)."

But ...

"This is a weak three-day opening for a superhero [film],” says David A. Gross, who runs the movie consulting firm Franchise Entertainment Research. “There have been similar openings that grew into big numbers,” he adds, referring to 2015’s “Ant-Man,” which opened to $57 million and ended with $519 million worldwide, as well as 2018’s “Aquaman,” which debuted to $67.4 million and finished at $1.15 billion globally. “But we do not see that here.”

Absent any real scientific, demographic analysis, it's not unreasonable to claim that current box office struggles are not related to "wokeness" (which is not a real word). Rather it's because the films suck.

Memo to Warner/HBO: Before you go all in on the new Potter thing your should consider backlash against "CMT" -- "critical muggle theory".

NEXT!

Wokeness is in the dictionary you dote.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/wokeness
You can’t plausibly deny it, TH.

And to only use a single example such as The Flash to prove your unsubstantiated point is extremely gullible. The Flash is yet another DCEU failure of poor storytelling. I already stated it earlier in this thread, it sucks. Looks like you’re agreeing with me again, TH.

Come on, TH, you can do better than this.

Check.

@Keith -- According to the Cambridge Dictionary that you linked to, "woke" is "a state of being aware, especially of social problems such as racism and inequality."

How is that a bad thing?

And it's very different from your politically-charged definition: "The active promotion of identity-based social justice issues that directly counter perceived insensitivity against progressive ideology."

It seems that there is nothing - no thing, no person, no place, no event, no product, no corporation - that you right-wingers can't make political. It all politics all the time.

Keith, not everything is political. Casting a black actress to play a mermaid in a movie is not "woke' and is not political. Your favorite right-wing radio/TV hosts made that up to keep you outraged. Your outrage makes them rich.

Beacher, it’s not a bad thing. How the Cambridge Dictionary defines woke, or wokeness specifically, is what it initially was when first termed and used by black Americans in the 1940s, 1950s and throughout the Civil Rights Era of the 1960s - awake to racism and inequality, and that’s a good thing. BTW, Republicans passed the abolishment of slavery, the 14th and 15th Amendments and the Civil Rights Acts of the 1960s with very little support from Democrats, and sometimes with zero support. And just to remind you, during the Civil War, the North was led by Republicans, including Abraham Lincoln, and the South was led by Democrats. And the KKK, it was founded by former members of the Confederacy and the Democratic Party. Being racist is in Democrats blood.
Today, wokeness has gone completely awry and become weaponized, hijacked by far-left liberals and radical members of the LGBTQ community. Woke, as it is today, is propped up by rich donors that push political propaganda, biological misconceptions, the silencing and redaction of speech, cancel culture and forced DEI. So yes, my definition of woke as the active promotion of identity-based social justice issues that directly counter perceived insensitivity against progressive ideology is accurate.
Yes not everything is political, but casting a black actress specifically for the sake of DEI is political and is woke. And yes, Disney is woke and losing billions of dollars and millions of customers because of it.

I read yesterday that here in the Uk more than 300 schools have employed private companies to "educate" our young children on gender issues. They teach that there are 94 different genders " to choose from" (?) and that gender identity is more important than the one you are born with.
A parent went to Court to force the school that her children attend to divulge what exactly they were brainwashing her children with. The judge ruled that protecting the business model of the company concerened outweighed the rights of the parents to know what was being taught to their children.
With movies and other Media supporting this reinvorcement of "woke" principles it becomes increasingly important and healthy that we all get to air our views on platforms like this.
This thread alone has sparked debate far removed from it's original question. Which in itself is kind of sad really because I thought TPI was supposed to be about the lighter side of life.

Is Keith seriously arguing that Avatar and the black panther series aren’t woke?

I was wondering for a while, but it’s pretty clear that’s a parody account.

@Rob P. I call. Please state the name of the case.

Chad H
Unfortunately the columnist in the newspaper didn't publish the names of those involved and yes, of course , one has to be aware that newspapers aren't always 100% truthful. However this did not appear to be an article attacking any particular Group but rather one that was drawing our attention to covert education of our children by bodies not associated with our education system. It suggested that parents should ask questions and to determine what steps could be taken to get the Government to address the issue.
Comments like yours might seem to demonstrate how anything that contradicts the "new order", for want of a better description, are met with a degree of consternation.
Anyway most parents , I feel, should have the right to access any part of their child's education. Particular if it's sensitive issues that are outside the
curriculum. If it's true that covert gender education is being taught then surely that in itself is rather sinister.

Keith, your grasp of 1960's history is, at best, quite faulty. You're parroting decades-old right-wing propaganda. Here are some facts:

Democratic President Lyndon B. Johnson championed the Civil Rights legislation of the 1960's. More Democrats voted for it than Republicans.

The Democrats who voted against it were from racist southern states and districts. After the legislation passed, they and their voters fled to the Republican party. (Take some time to learn about "Dixiecrats".)

Richard Nixon solidified the GOP's hold on the racist south with his "Southern Strategy." Ever since, the GOP has been the home of the KKK and other racist organizations/persons.

You wrote: "Being racist is in Democrats blood." That's easily the stupidest thing ever written in these forums.

THE INCONVENIENT TRUTH ABOUT THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY
By Carol Swain, Professor of Political Science and Law at Vanderbilt University

When you think about racial equality and civil rights, which political party comes to mind? The Republicans? Or, the Democrats? Most people would probably say the Democrats. But this answer is incorrect.

Since its founding in 1829, the Democratic Party has fought against every major civil rights initiative, and has a long history of discrimination.

The Democratic Party defended slavery, started the Civil War, opposed Reconstruction, founded the Ku Klux Klan, imposed segregation, perpetrated lynchings, and fought against the civil rights acts of the 1950s and 1960s.

In contrast, the Republican Party was founded in 1854 as an anti-slavery party. Its mission was to stop the spread of slavery into the new western territories with the aim of abolishing it entirely. This effort, however, was dealt a major blow by the Supreme Court. In the 1857 case Dred Scott v. Sandford, the court ruled that slaves aren’t citizens; they’re property. The seven justices who voted in favor of slavery? All Democrats. The two justices who dissented? Both Republicans.

The slavery question was, of course, ultimately resolved by a bloody civil war. The commander- in-chief during that war was the first Republican President, Abraham Lincoln – the man who freed the slaves.

Six days after the Confederate army surrendered, John Wilkes Booth, a Democrat, assassinated President Lincoln. Lincoln’s vice president, a Democrat named Andrew Johnson, assumed the presidency. But Johnson adamantly opposed Lincoln’s plan to integrate the newly freed slaves into the South’s economic and social order.

Johnson and the Democratic Party were unified in their opposition to the 13th Amendment, which abolished slavery; the 14th Amendment, which gave blacks citizenship; and the 15th Amendment, which gave blacks the vote. All three passed only because of universal Republican support.

During the era of Reconstruction, federal troops stationed in the south helped secure rights for the newly freed slaves. Hundreds of black men were elected to southern state legislatures as Republicans, and 22 black Republicans served in the US Congress by 1900. The Democrats did not elect a black man to Congress until 1935.

But after Reconstruction ended, when the federal troops went home, Democrats roared back into power in the South. They quickly reestablished white supremacy across the region with measures like black codes – laws that restricted the ability of blacks to own property and run businesses. And they imposed poll taxes and literacy tests, used to subvert the black citizen’s right to vote.

And how was all of this enforced? By terror -- much of it instigated by the Ku Klux Klan, founded by a Democrat, Nathan Bedford Forrest.

As historian Eric Foner - himself a Democrat - notes:
“In effect, the Klan was a military force serving the interests of the Democratic Party.”

President Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat, shared many views with the Klan. He re-segregated many federal agencies, and even screened the first movie ever played at the White House - the racist film “The Birth of a Nation,” originally entitled “The Clansman.”

A few decades later, the only serious congressional opposition to the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 came from Democrats.

Eighty percent of Republicans in Congress supported the bill. Less than 70 percent of Democrats did. Democratic senators filibustered the bill for 75 days, until Republicans mustered the few extra votes needed to break the logjam.

And when all of their efforts to enslave blacks, keep them enslaved, and then keep them from voting had failed, the Democrats came up with a new strategy: If black people are going to vote, they might as well vote for Democrats. As President Lyndon Johnson was purported to have said about the Civil Rights Act, “I’ll have them n*****s voting Democrat for two hundred years.”

So now, the Democratic Party prospers on the votes of the very people it has spent much of its history oppressing.

Democrats falsely claim that the Republican Party is the villain, when in reality it’s the failed policies of the Democratic Party that have kept blacks down. Massive government welfare has decimated the black family. Opposition to school choice has kept them trapped in failing schools. Politically correct policing has left black neighborhoods defenseless against violent crime.

So, when you think about racial equality and civil rights, which political party should come to mind?

And as we know, absolutely nothing has changed with the Democrat or Republican parties since 1964. Nope, not one thing....

LIBERAL POLICIES HARM BLACK AMERICANS
Chattanooga Times Free Press

For several decades now, Democrats have been the political party of choice for the overwhelming majority of black Americans. But why? The progressive policies pushed by Democratic leaders have failed dreadfully at helping black people, stifling their economic mobility, restricting educational options, limiting job opportunities and drastically harming prospects for success.

Minimum wage and living wage laws, for example, purport to help black workers, but they actually do little more than reduce the number of available jobs - especially for young, low skill and minority workers. Affirmative Action sets minorities up to fail by placing them in academic institutions or jobs where they are not qualified.

Oppressive regulations make it nearly impossible for many would-be black entrepreneurs to start businesses and live the American Dream. Rent controls limit the number and quality of homes available in many American cities - particularly in majority black areas. Democrats' senseless opposition to school choice leaves promising students trapped in failing schools.

Gun control laws fail to reduce gun violence and prevent many of the disproportionate number of black Americans who are killed by guns from defending themselves. Even Democrats' hostility towards Social Security privatization particularly harms blacks since African Americans generally have shorter life expectancies than whites and, because of poorer job opportunities, are less likely to accumulate wealth than other Americans.

If fact, despite spending $15 trillion on policies aimed at benefiting black Americans over the past 50 years it's hard to find a single liberal policy with any positive results.

You may be thinking: "Liberal policies may have failed black Americans, but what have those horrible, racist Republicans ever done for black people?" Well, there is one small fact about the Republican Party being founded to end slavery - and then succeeding in doing so. Oh, and the GOP also ratified the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments to the U. S. Constitution granting citizenship and the right to vote to black Americans. (Of course many black people couldn't exercise their voting rights because Democrats implemented a number of barriers, including poll taxes, registration fraud, literacy tests and physical violence to keep black voters from the polls for the better part of a century.)

Republicans also enacted monumental civil rights protections in 1866 and 1875 - and passed the Civil Rights Acts of the 1950s and 1960s by a far greater percentage than Democrats. Dwight Eisenhower, a Republican president, sent troops to Arkansas to desegregate schools, and his appointment of Chief Justice Earl Warren to the U.S. Supreme Court paved the way for the Brown v. Board of Education decision that ended school segregation.

To be fair, Democrats left their mark on America's black community, as well. Unlike, Republicans, however, the impact of Democrats has almost always been a negative one.

Democrats fought to preserve slavery and founded the Ku Klux Klan. Democratic politicians ushered in Jim Crow laws, creating segregation throughout the South. George C. Wallace, the Democratic governor of Alabama, blocked a door at the University of Alabama in an attempt to prevent black students from enrolling.

Two Democratic presidents, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry Truman, rejected anti-lynching laws, and another, Lyndon Johnson, referred to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. as "that [N-word] preacher."
Throughout American history, the Republican Party has done far more to advance the civil rights and establish fairer, more equal treatment of black Americans than Democrats. That is still true today.

Louisiana state Sen. Elbert Guillory explained the failures of Democratic Party and liberal policies during his announcement that he was leaving the Democratic Party to become the first black Republican state senator in Louisiana since Reconstruction.

Declaring the Democratic Party the "party of disappointment," Guillory proclaimed that, "at the heart of liberalism is the idea that only a great and powerful big government can be the benefactor of social justice for all Americans. But the left is only concerned with one thing - control. And they disguise this control as charity. Programs such as welfare, food stamps, these programs aren't designed to lift black Americans out of poverty, they were always intended as a mechanism for politicians to control the black community.

The idea that blacks, or anyone for that matter, need the government to get ahead in life is despicable. And even more important, this idea is a failure. Our communities are just as poor as they've always been. Our schools continue to fail children. Our prisons are filled with young black men who should be at home being fathers. Our self-initiative and our self-reliance have been sacrificed in exchange for allegiance to our overseers who control us by making us dependent on them."

Sen. Guillory is just one of many black Americans who now recognize that Democratic politicians have betrayed the black community and liberal policies have left them worse off.

I would rather support a Democratic Party responding to the problems of the 2020s than a Republican Party pretending to exemplify their ideals of the 1860s while actually trying to return us to the 1950s.

I've looked up many definitions of "woke," and decided that the one I respond to most is this: "Woke means awakened to the needs of others. To be well-informed, thoughtful, compassionate, humble, and kind. Eager to make the world a better place for all people." I guess I'm woke, and frankly, I'm proud of it. Literally, everything Jesus said and taught was woke.

If someone wishes to personally attack me for this, so be it. I have nothing to apologize for and will not attack them in return. If they are comfortable with their beliefs, then so be it. It's a free country. They can believe what they want, and if they can't offer me the same courtesy, well, that is their own issue to bear.

Man! It really hurts when somebody brings facts to the argument.

Can we go back to fun stuff like “When is that woke shill working part time for the Disney PR Dept, TH Creative, going to get that long-deserved promotion?” The dude is so good, I’d promote him to be the next “Bob.”

Nothing but love for you James!
God bless.

Thank you, Keith. Same to you. I wasn't ready for Calculus, and I tried to study that my first year in college!

Well James, with that being said, I have to respectfully disagree with you on some points. Free handouts and the recognition of falsehoods is not the best response by the Democratic Party to problems of the 2020s. Also, some things do not belong in public schools, plain and simple. Children are not ready for certain subjects, those teachings should be reserved for in the home. Yes, there are times when things are taken too far, but as long as we work together with the best of intentions, then we’ll all be alright.

Somehow our messages have been jumping over each other. My calculus comment was posted on my timeline after your last post appeared. Weird. Can I safely say that it's probably Russian bots?!

“Russia, Russia, Russia…and China (pronounced JIA-nuh).” - DJT

Keith, - "Today, wokeness has gone completely awry and become weaponized, hijacked by far-left liberals and radical members of the LGBTQ community. Woke, as it is today, is propped up by rich donors that push political propaganda, biological misconceptions, the silencing and redaction of speech, cancel culture and forced DEI. So yes, my definition of woke as the active promotion of identity-based social justice issues that directly counter perceived insensitivity against progressive ideology is accurate.

Yes not everything is political, but casting a black actress specifically for the sake of DEI is political and is woke. And yes, Disney is woke and losing billions of dollars and millions of customers because of it."

Keith, I think the issue is the automatic conclusion that if something is considered "woke" (a severely overused word) that alone is the reason for any & all "failures". It completely absolves ANY other factors. Like the casting ALONE is the only reason the film didn't set the box office ablaze. If they didn't cast a black actress, the film would have been the next Avatar in terms of box office...the reviews would've been the greatest, and all would be golden. It completely disregards any other issues that the film could have.

As a serious question, what about TLM, apart from the casting, would cause it to be considered terribly "woke"? Is the content of the film?

Is there content with political / social motivations in content today? Absolutely...but that goes back to the Golden Age of Hollywood. Films from the 60's 70's, 80's and 90's can be included. Many films mirrored the changes happening in society at the time. Films like 1967's Guess Who's Coming To Dinner would easily be seen as "pushing an agenda". Movies like Norma Rae, Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore, The Stepford Wives all would be considered "woke". There's nothing new under the sun (the only difference now, is the accessibility to post, comment & react to it)

EVERYTHING is being viewed and looked at through a political lens now. Even IF they cast for diversity sake...it wouldn't be the first time it that has happened. Like I mentioned before, 97's Cinderella went WAY farther with that casting than TLM, & that movie broke records with over 60 million viewers...Disney's highest rated movie in years. On Broadway in the 90's, Toni Braxton was Belle in Beauty & The Beast.

Sesame Street has recently added muppets that are varying races (most recently a Filipino muppet) They have a muppet character with autism, a muppet who uses a wheelchair. Is this considered "woke"?

I'm definitely not saying you haven't made some points, and you've opened up an interesting dialogue. I guess (for me) it gets frustrating when everything is so easily put in a "left" or "right" box. It is as if, audiences are only their political beliefs or ideology...

But that doesn't mean every failure (or success) can be chalked up to something being woke. People have more dimensions than that, but often times it is not that deep. Yes, there are those who will "take a stance"...but there are also PLENTY of others who are NOT guided (whether for or against) by whether something is woke or not.

Good points, Jay R., but I will say this, Disney’s decision to produce and support woke content has made it that much more difficult for them to appeal to conservative minded families, which accounts for at least half of their primary audience. Do you think that would eventually make a pretty big dent in their box office returns and/or Disney+ subscriptions?

@Rob P

>> Unfortunately the columnist in the newspaper didn't publish the names of those involved and yes, of course , one has to be aware that newspapers aren't always 100% truthful.

Neither are posters who cite court cases and articles they can’t link to and can’t state the titles of.

>> Also, some things do not belong in public schools, plain and simple. Children are not ready for certain subjects, those teachings should be reserved for in the home.

On my first day of school, I was introduced to my teacher “Mrs Robinson”, which as a 5 year old I understood to mean there was also a “Mr Robinson” and they lived together like mummies and daddies do. Apparently it’s really important for kids to know their female teachers have husbands, or at least it was in 198X.

Strangely, this is okay, but acknowledging that sometimes MR Robinson lives with Mr Robinson and they live together like mummy and daddy do is a “culture war” thing that “should be taught at home”.

School and what school teaches should reflect the community, not some idealised version of 1959 that wasn’t even true then. But it seems it’s only a culture war if you fight against this, rather than for it.

Why was it important to know who your teacher was married to and why would a 5 year old even care? I see this argument going nowhere fast.

@ Keith. I do agree...producing & supporting "woke" content has made it harder to appeal to conservative families.

The question becomes, what is considered "woke"? And who decides that? That word has become a catch me all for EVERYTHING that someone may disagree with now, and that causes a slippery slope....because it becomes easier to continually add new "offenses" to it.

(Top Gun: Maverick was a huge hit, but last year online, ALOT of people said it was "woke" because the cadet team included a Latino, black, & female pilot...)

When "everything" becomes woke...it starts to really water down its meaning.

If the casting of TLM is enough for it to be considered woke, then has the line truly been moved? Or are "conservative families" being (intentionally) influenced even more by the politics of the day. The same way the left can weaponize things, the right can as well. Both sides can rile up their bases to fit their narrative.

If Ariel gave a speech about "racial equality, supporting LGBTQ rights, and fighting climate change & police corruption "...then 100%, that's content that meant to send a message. But If it is considered woke SIMPLY because she was cast, that has now taken things even further.

My point is, many of these conservative families clearly were fans / on board and continued to patronize Disney & its themes parks before...and that's when the company was doing colorblind casting and had "questionable" content. Everything from TLM poster, changing song lyrics, the Aladdin & the Lion King innuendo controversy, The Rescuers movie nudity, they had gay days back in 1997. The Blank Check movie, Pocahontas, all the Disney Americana theme park stuff, alcohol in MK, ...the list goes on & on.

There are a ton of things form the 90's thought the 00's that Disney did that are very 'Woke" and should've caused & sent conservative families to flee permanently. They did not. Half of their primary base should've been gone decades ago, because they were doing "questionable content" even then.

I'm not saying Disney isn't trying to have its cake & eat it too (Like you said, half of the base is going to be for it, the other half against it). I'm simply saying the "political climate" we are in is heavily influencing people on both sides and that isn't being acknowledged...

Back to the original topic. If the reason for this movie's underperformance is that a black actress was cast as the mythical creature from a cartoon then this is a sad indictment on society and the systemic racism that exists. Keith, you are a racist. Dress it up however you like, if this is your opinion (and it seems pretty clear it is) then you're racist.

The consensus amongst reviews from audiences and critics alike, even those critical of the movie, is that Halle Bailey nailed the role with amazing vocals. She clearly earned the role and performed well in it. The only argument against her casting seems to be the colour of her skin.

>>Why was it important to know who your teacher was married to and why would a 5 year old even care?

Thats MY question Keith. In Schools across the western world we call our female teachers "Miss" or "Mrs". Apparently enforcing idealised 195Xs era roles and that a woman's value is based on her marital status is "just fine" (even thought that wasn't even true in the 50's) but acknowledging that gay and trans people live in your neighbourhood today is "indoctrination". Hell, I remember not so long ago even going for the Matrinal neutral "Ms" was the equivalent of being "too woke" today and "destroying families" and all that other nonsense you're spouting.

So why is that type of indoctrination okay, but reflecting actual reality isn't? Kids aren't stupid, they can understand and handle that Mr Robinson can live with and love another Mr Robinson just like Mrs Robinson could also be lived with and loved by a Mr Robinson. Acknowledgng they exist isn't some "culture war" or "indoctrination", its reflecting reality.

Some say history repeats. Some say it only rhymes. When I see your posts, I see you singing the exact same song from 10/20/30/40 years ago and just changed the noun, and I'm tired of it.

Uh oh, looks like there’s an answer to Keith’s question in the opening post.

Latondra Newton, Disney’s Chief Diversity Officer is leaving Disney “to pursue other endeavors.”

@Chad H - You’re cracking me up with your straw man argument about indoctrination and reality.

Disney corporate president Karey Burke was recorded on video saying that she wanted a minimum of 50 percent of the characters in Disney products to be LGBTQIA and racial minorities.

Does that come even close to reality?

grant, the reason this movie underperformed is not because a black actress was cast, that’s a terrible assumption. As I recall (to which I noted a few times throughout this thread), Black Panther Wakanda Forever did very well at the box office and there were many black actresses in that movie, all of them beautiful and talented, as is Halle Bailey. No, the reason why this movie underperformed is because Disney is woke and more than half the world chose not to buy into it anymore.

Jay R., in the same vein as many of your points, this article is very thought provoking.

A Black DEI Director Canceled by DEI
By Tabia Lee

This month, I was fired from my position as faculty director for the Office of Equity, Social Justice, and Multicultural Education at De Anza Community College in Cupertino, Calif.—a position I had held for two years. This wasn’t an unexpected development. From the beginning, my colleagues and supervisors had made clear their opposition to the approach I brought to the job. Although I was able to advance some positive initiatives, I did so in the face of constant obstruction.

What made me persona non grata? On paper, I was a good fit for the job. I am a black woman with decades of experience teaching in public schools and leading workshops on diversity, equity, inclusion, and antiracism. At the Los Angeles Unified School District, I established a network to help minority teachers attain National Board Certification. I designed and facilitated numerous teacher trainings and developed a civic-education program that garnered accolades from the LAUSD Board of Education.

My crime at De Anza was running afoul of the tenets of critical social justice, a worldview that understands knowledge as relative and tied to unequal identity-based power dynamics that must be exposed and dismantled. This, I came to recognize, was the unofficial but strictly enforced ideological orthodoxy of De Anza—as it is at many other educational institutions. When I interviewed for the job in August 2021, there was no indication that I would be required to adhere to this particular vision of social justice. On the contrary, I was informed during the interview process that the office I would be working in had been alienating some faculty with a “too-woke” approach that involved “calling people out.” (After I was hired, this sentiment was echoed by many faculty, staff, and administrators I spoke to.) I told the hiring committee that I valued open dialogue and viewpoint diversity. Given their decision to hire me, I imagined I would find broad support for the vision I had promised to bring to my new role. I was wrong.

Even before any substantive conflicts came to a head, warning lights started flashing. Within my first two weeks on the job, a staff member in my office revealed he had also been a finalist for my position and objected to the fact that I had been chosen over someone who had been there for years “doing the work.” I would have a rough ride ahead, this person told me—and, indeed, I would. It also soon became clear that my supervising dean and her aligned colleagues were attempting to prevent me from performing my duties.

From the beginning, efforts to obstruct my work were framed in terms that might seem bizarre to those outside certain academic spaces. For instance, simply attempting to set an agenda for meetings caused my colleagues to accuse me of “whitespeaking,” “whitesplaining,” and reinforcing “white supremacy”—accusations I had never faced before. I was initially baffled, but as I attended workshops led by my officemates and promoted by my supervising dean, I repeatedly encountered a presentation slide titled “Characteristics of White-Supremacy Culture” that denounced qualities like “sense of urgency” and “worship of the written word.” Written meeting agendas apparently checked both boxes.

You may have encountered this graphic or similar ones before. Derived from Kenneth Jones’s and Tema Okun’s 2001 book, Dismantling Racism, it has appeared in different forms on many institutional websites, sometimes provoking controversy. After all, doesn’t the statement that “objectivity” and “perfectionism” are “white” qualities seem kind of, well, racist? On these grounds, the National Museum of African American History eventually saw fit to remove a “White-Supremacy Culture” page from its site in 2020. But if you are wondering whether this document is still circulating and being cited inside publicly funded educational institutions, the unfortunate answer is yes.

As I attended more events and spoke with more people, I realized that the institutional redefinition of familiar terms wasn’t limited to “white supremacy.” Race, racism, equality, and equity, I discovered, meant different things to my coworkers and supervising dean than they did to me. One of my officemates displayed a graphic of apples dropping to the ground from a tree, with the explanation that “equity means everybody gets some of the apples”; my officemates and supervising dean praised him for this “accurate definition.” When I pointed out that this definition seemed to focus solely on equality of outcomes, without any attention to equality of opportunity or power, it was made clear this perspective wasn’t welcome. “Equity” and “equality,” for my colleagues, were separate and even opposed concepts, and as one of them told me, the aspiration to equality was “a thing of the past.”

Having recognized these differences, I attempted to use them as starting points for dialogue. In the workshops I led, I sought to make space for people to share their own definitions of various concepts and then to identify common points of reference that we could rally around, even as we acknowledged and accepted differences of perspective.

In one workshop, for instance, I presented a chart summarizing two different racial-justice outlooks. The first was what I have called the neo-reconstructionist perspective popularized by Ibram X. Kendi’s bestseller How to Be an Antiracist, which presents an individual’s destiny as determined by social identity and holds that present racial discrimination can be an appropriate remedy for past racial discrimination and that ultimate emancipation from racism isn’t possible. I juxtaposed these views with those promoted by the Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism, which takes a more open-ended view of oppression and privilege, wherein human destiny is determined by human choices, racial discrimination in all forms is rejected, and emancipation from racism is seen as possible and desirable. Without editorializing, I gave participants time to notice the differences between the perspectives. We then came together and shared things that these two seemingly divergent philosophies had in common. The aim was to enable a conversation between two perspectives that I already saw at play in divisions on campus about how to approach issues of race.

When I was evaluated as part of the tenure process, some of my evaluators objected to such efforts to identify points of commonality between divergent viewpoints. They also objected to such views being presented at all. One evaluator, who described herself as a “third-wave antiracist,” aligning her with Kendi’s philosophy, made clear that the way I had presented her worldview was deeply offensive. Another evaluator objected to my presentation of “dangerous ideas” drawn from the scholarship of Sheena Mason, whose theory of “racelessness” presents race as something that can be overcome. This evaluator told me that it was disrespectful of me to set Kendi’s and Mason’s views side-by-side or to treat them as at all comparable.

“Anything short of lockstep adherence to critical social justice was impermissible.”
A dogmatic understanding of social justice shaped organizational and hiring practices. One of the faculty seated on my tenure-review committee invited me to join a socialist network she was a member of. I declined, confessing that I don’t identify with that (or any other) political label. She later observed one of my workshops and wrote up an evaluation before meeting with me to have a conversation about the workshop. I had been told that the post-observation conversation was an important part of the evaluation process. When we finally spoke, after she had already drafted her evaluation, she was dismissive and quickly terminated the conversation, stating we had nothing more to talk about. She proceeded to file her evaluation as it was written prior to our meeting.

This evaluator later gave me a “needs-improvement” rating on the rubric for the “accepts-criticism” criterion. Her aligned colleagues repeatedly assigned me the same rating. It was clear that this rating was rooted in ideological concerns, rather than any substantive objections to my performance. Anything short of lockstep adherence to critical social justice was impermissible. “Criticism” was only supposed to go in one direction. Contextualizing my colleagues’ views and comparing them to other approaches to the same issues, much less criticizing them, was “dangerous”; my supposed failure to “accept criticism” was, simply put, a refusal to accept without question the dogmas these colleagues saw as beyond criticism.

The conflicts were not limited to my tenure-review process. At every turn, I experienced strident opposition when I deviated from the accepted line. When I brought Jewish speakers to campus to address anti-Semitism and the Holocaust, some of my critics branded me a “dirty Zionist” and a “right-wing extremist.” When I formed the Heritage Month Workgroup, bringing together community members to create a multifaith holiday and heritage month calendar, the De Anza student government voted to support this effort. However, my officemates and dean explained to me that such a project was unacceptable, because it didn’t focus on “decentering whiteness.”

When I later sought the support of our academic senate for the Heritage Month project, one opponent asked me if it was “about all the Jewish-inclusion stuff you have been pushing here,” and argued that the senate shouldn’t support the Heritage Month Workgroup efforts, because I was attempting to “turn our school into a religious school.” The senate president deferred to this claim, and the workgroup was denied support.

Just hours after this senate meeting, a group of colleagues attended the Foothill-De Anza Board of Trustees meeting and called for my immediate termination. (A public video of this meeting is available.) These individuals claimed to represent campus racial-affinity groups, but they hadn’t polled their group members or gotten consensus on the statements they issued. This sort of dynamic, where single individuals present themselves as speaking for entire groups, is part and parcel of the critical-social-justice approach. It allows individuals to present their ideological viewpoints as unassailable, since they supposedly represent the experience of the entire identity group to which they belong. Hence, any criticism can be framed as an attack on the group.

The majority of the people employed at De Anza College aren’t ideological extremists. During my time there, people who had previously opted not to engage with my office started to attend my workshops and told me how refreshing my approach was. When under review, I presented letters from collaborators who worked with me on each workshop I facilitated, participant evaluations, and a great deal of other material attesting to the positive impact of my work. None of these things mattered to the board of trustees, the chancellor, or the president. Only the narratives that were put forth by the ideologically biased evaluators mattered. I was fired, in other words, for delivering exactly what I had promised to in my job interview. For those who sought my termination, the same approach that appealed to faculty previously alienated by my office’s divisive callout culture was a threat to the college’s “equity progress.”

“Orthodoxy superseded all else: collegiality, professionalism, the truth.”
For those within the critical-social-justice-ideological complex, asking questions, encouraging other people to ask questions, and considering multiple perspectives—all of these things, which should be central to academic work, are an existential danger. The advocates of critical social justice emphasize oppression and tribalistic identity, and believe that a just society must ensure equality of outcomes; this is in contrast to a classical social-justice approach, which focuses on freedom and individuality, understands knowledge as objective and tied to agency and free will, and believes that a just society emphasizes equality of opportunity. The monoculture of critical social justice needs to suppress this alternative worldview and insulate itself from criticism so its advocates can maintain their dominant position. Protection of orthodoxy supersedes all else: collegiality, professionalism, the truth.

My case, sadly, isn’t unique. At colleges across the country, critical-social-justice adherents are inserting their ideological stances as the supreme determinants of whether candidates advance in the tenure-review process. Faculty are under pressure to profess their allegiance to this particular set of dogmas and to embed a certain way of talking and thinking about race into their course curriculum. They are being encouraged to categorize every student as a victim or an oppressor, and to devote their classes to indoctrination.

If certain ideologues have their way, compelled speech will become an even more common aspect of university life. Faculty and staff will be obligated to declare their gender pronouns and to use gender-neutral terms like “Latinx” and “Filipinx,” even as many members of the groups in question view these terms as expressions of cultural and linguistic imperialism. Soon enough, we may also be formally required to start all classes and meetings with land acknowledgments, regardless of how empty a gesture this may seem to living members of tribal nations.

All of these things are on the horizon, because faculty members are afraid to resist. They know that anyone who questions these practices will be accused of racism and other grave sins. Because critical-social-justice advocates often present themselves as representatives of their identity groups, any criticisms of them can be treated as an attack on the groups they claim to stand for. By this and other means, they ensure their worldview is unassailable. Although I knew I had colleagues who supported my approach, most had been pressured into silence.

As my experience shows, questioning the reigning orthodoxies does carry many risks. But the alternative is worse. Authoritarian ideologies advance through a reliance on intimidation and the compliance of the majority, which cowers in silence—instead of speaking up. Engaging in civil discourse and ensuring that multiple perspectives are presented are crucial, if we want to preserve the components of education that ideologues are seeking to destroy.

There is some reason to hope. Since my firing, I have been contacted by scores of people who have said that they are attempting to resist similar pressures. As bleak as things may seem, there are many who still believe in academia as a space where divergent viewpoints can and must be explored.

Sir this is an Arby's.

@ChadH

You do yourself a diservice by deliberately misunderstanding my point and wandering off in whatever direction that takes you.
I was merely making the point that our education system in the UK needs to be transparent and that parents should have the right to know what is being taught to their children.Particularly when it's by businesses that have no place in our schools.
If there's nothing to hide then openly discuss this with Parents and allow them to have an input.
They may not wish for their young children to be given gender education at all let alone by bodies outside the education system and ones indoctrinating kids with their particular views.
For information I can advise that the article I read was in The Sun newspaper and that it published no names for obvious, but probably far less sinister, reasons.
You encapsulate the whole problem with this so called "woke" society by attacking the right to any viewpoint that differs from your own.
That's both sad and disturbing. This is not the 1930s.

>> You do yourself a diservice by deliberately misunderstanding my point

If your point relies on things that did not happen in order to be valid, then your point has a problem.

You appear to be worried about things that as best as I can determine, did not happen, and when challenged fall on “well my point and concerns are still valid”.

That’s not a problem with “wokeness”. It’s a problem with your critical thinking skills. An article in the sun supposedly, well know. For its own agendas, which you still can’t actually cite, and apparently does not even cite its sources is a terrible piece of evidence to base anything off - there were less red flags in the Soviet Union.

The fact is so called “gender” education is a phantom menace. Either we reflect the community, or we reflect the idealised 1950s nonsense version where everyone is straight, white, and women’s marital status is communicated before their name. It’s only a “work culture war” because Indictrinnation of the latter is no longer acceptable.

Maryland Bill Would Force Schools to Teach Children About ‘Gender Identity,’ ‘Sexual Orientation’ and ‘Intersectionality’
Posted by Jeff Johnston | Mar 1, 2023 | Education | Daily Citizen

Maryland’s Department of Education adopted a new health education framework in 2021, which includes teaching school children about “gender identity,” “sexual orientation” and “intersectionality.”

But many parents balked at this content, opposing it at school board meetings in conservative counties. Carroll County Public School District even created alternative health content that “struck the ‘gender identity and expression topic’ from all grade levels,” The Washington Post reported.

Now, a state senator has introduced legislation, SB 199, that would force school districts to abide by the state standards. Parents can still opt their children out, but the rest of the students – from prekindergarten through 12th grade – will be taught gender ideology.

If SB 199 passes, Maryland will join seven states – California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Nevada, New Jersey and Oregon – that have legislatures which mandate teaching gender ideology in all grades.

The Department of Education had adopted the health guidelines, “Maryland Comprehensive Health Education Framework: Pre-Kindergarten Through High School.” Schools were expected to follow the guidance by 2025.

The framework has instruction on “Family Life and Human Sexuality” beginning in prekindergarten. Under the topic “gender identity and expression,” these young children will be taught to “recognize and respect that people express themselves in many different ways.”

Pre-K students are also taught to “recognize that there are different types of families (e.g., single- parent, same-gender, intergenerational, blended, interracial, adoptive, foster, etc.).”

Kindergartners will go a step further, being taught to “recognize a range of ways people identify and express their gender” and to “recognize it is important to treat people of all gender identities and expressions with dignity and respect.”

The standards require first graders to “identify a range of ways people identify and express gender,” while second and third graders will learn to “demonstrate ways to treat people of all gender identities and expressions with dignity and respect.”

Of course we should teach children to treat all people with dignity and respect. But do they need to learn about “gender identity and expression” in kindergarten to learn this basic principle?

Let’s be clear: Children in Maryland will be taught a political and sexual ideology that has no basis in reality or science. Among other things, gender ideology teaches that a person can change from one sex to the other, there are a multitude of “genders,” and a person’s beliefs or desires about themselves trump physical reality. Gender activists and their allies sexualize and confuse children by inculcating them into this irrational belief system.

The requirements continue as students move from grade to grade. Fourth graders will be taught how to “identify sexual orientation as a person’s physical and/or romantic attraction to an individual of the same and/or different gender.”

Each grade level indoctrinates children further into this radical dogma. Sixth graders are taught to define these terms: “sex assigned at birth,” “gender identity” and “gender expression.”

Seventh graders are taught to “identify solo, vaginal, anal, and oral sex along with possible outcomes of each” and to “recognize racism and intersectionality and describe their impacts on sexual health.”

Maryland schools will not only teach gender ideology as part of “Family Life and Human Sexuality,” but terms borrowed from critical race theory are added to the content for higher grades.

High schoolers must be able to “differentiate between sexual orientation, sexual behavior, and sexual identity” and “examine the impact of gender expression and gender identity on members of marginalized communities and analyze the intersectionality of race, culture, and gender for members of those communities.”

“Intersectionality” sees people not as individuals, but as oppressor or victim, based on their various identities and allegiances.

Ironically, the legislation was introduced around the same time the press was condemning the city of Baltimore for its failing schools. A local Fox News outlet’s “Project Baltimore” analyzed test results for the city and found:

The Maryland State Department of Education recently released the 2022 state test results known as MCAP, Maryland Comprehensive Assessment Program.

Baltimore City’s math scores were the lowest in the state. Just 7 percent of third through eighth graders tested proficient in math, which means 93 percent could not do math at grade level.
Project Baltimore uncovered another shocking fact:

Project Baltimore found, in 23 Baltimore City schools, there were zero students who tested proficient in math. Not a single student. …

Among the list of 23 schools, there are 10 high schools, eight elementary schools, three Middle/High schools and two Elementary/Middle schools.

Exactly 2,000 students, in total, took the state math test at these schools. Not one could do math at grade level.
But the state’s Department of Education, and now its legislature, think it’s important for children to be indoctrinated into our modern cult of sexual and gender ideology.

Now, more than ever, parents and concerned citizens must pay attention to public schools. Parents are ultimately responsible for their children’s education – not the state, but we all must oppose this inappropriate sexualization and confusion of children.

And we can all support and advocate for educational freedom, where students are funded – not failing institutions, giving parents more independence to choose what’s best for their children.

Enjoy the video:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bNgbuv6wVPc

Who should Disney fire next?

Hey, Keith, here's some facts for you: The Little Mermaid has just become a huge hit in the Philippines and building more legs as just opened in Japan which is slower in box office but often helps.

"In the U.S., The Little Mermaid has been doing good business despite protestations by some regarding Bailey’s casting. The movie has earned north of $257 million since its May 24 release. Box office analysts believe it could top out at $350 million domestically, close to Aladdin’s domestic haul of $355.6 million."

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/little-mermaid-blockbuster-philippines-racist-backlash-1235521433/

Allow me to try a different tact with Mr. Schneider. He does not like the Walt Disney Company.

I respect his opinion and don't question his motives.

As far as the topic of this thread and ancillary assessments of Walt Disney Studios, I think it is not unreasonable to assume that at the end of 2023 the Walt Disney Studios will have the highest gross box office revenues over any other major studio in Hollywood. Walt Disney Studios will be number one for its eighth consecutive year.

And yet the last 8 movies released by Disney, including The Little Mermaid, have lost the company about $900m collectively, just a hair under $1B. That sucks!

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bNgbuv6wVPc

Who should Disney fire…NEXT!

Haha, that’s funny MikeW, the Philippines measly $5.8m four week box office total means TLM has legs. And the $10.5m over two weeks from Japan really needs to be $100m to help keep TLM out of the red, and that still wouldn’t be enough.
TLM was supposed to be another $1B blockbuster for Disney and it needs to make $700m to break even. It hasn’t even broken $500m.
Yes, The Little Mermaid remake is officially a major flop!

Tim, 42% of the population in the US is not white (including the Latino population which would be considered a racial minority). Approximately 8% identify as LGBTQ. Whilst these numbers are not additive that's pretty close to 50%.

Consider also that Disney is an international company targeting countries where the white population is significantly smaller and the LGBTQ population is larger than the US.

Whilst 50% does seem quite high, it's actually reasonably proportional to the US and not even close to the international audience required to turn a profit.

Keith when providing "sources" for information, a YouTube video from a random vlogger is not valid. My daughter is in grade 4 and get teachers would criticise her for that. If you want to be taken seriously, please don't post crap.

As for The legislation in Maryland, your article is written by a Christian counselor who endorses gay conversion therapy. Whilst that doesn't immediately discount his opinions, looking into the legislation it is being introduced with their health department and American Academy of Pediatrics to address health crises existing in the state. It allows for health and sexual education on a county by county basis with the health boards in each country.

One example it raised was Worcester county where the CDC identifies that 40% of high school and 7.3% of middle school students were sexually active. Rates of chlamydia are 5 times higher in people aged 15-24. Drinking and drug taking rates are significant. 12% of students identified as LGBTQ. Clearly parents aren't managing this problem on their own. Banning schools from being able to discuss these things is moronic, particularly when appropriate health agencies are involved.

Gay people exist. Trans people exist. They have equal rights to everyone else in society. By recognising that they exist, Disney isn't being evil.

Truth hurts, huh grant? As of late, there’s more truth in many of these vlogs than there is in mainstream media. The vlogger presented and reviewed published numbers, i.e. facts, no more, no less. To dismiss it is to only fool yourself. Maybe you just don’t want to believe it, but the facts are there for your review. And if you don’t like it, well then that’s just too bad princess.

And to believe that the state should have a primary role in teaching and instilling morals and values to children is absolutely moronic. Parents raise children, not the state. Are you a Communist?

Yes. Because I feel that it's the job of a health department to promote health, and it's the job of schools to educate I'm a communist...

I'll be honest, I didn't watch the video. Random vloggers being cherry picked to support biased arguments on the internet don't generally interest me. But to clarify, you're telling me that the last 8 movies Disney released lost them $900 million. And you learnt that conclusively from this video?

You didn’t say that, grant. You said, “Clearly parents aren't managing this problem on their own. Banning schools from being able to discuss these things is moronic, particularly when appropriate health agencies are involved.“ Allowing schools to “teach” these things is wrong, it would be the sexualization and indoctrination of children done by the state. Is there something wrong with you, grant?

BTW, did you watch the video yet?

Let's see, vlogger with obvious Disney/"woke" bias against the trade outlets whose job is to report and analyze box office with years of experience. Yeah, that's a tough one deciding who to listen to.

And how much money did the last 8 Disney movies lose according to the trade outlets, MikeW?

Considering that Avatar was one of those movies ignored by you here, and two movies referenced are still in the cinema and haven't finished their runs I'd say you're full of crap.

As for education in these circumstances, are you seriously that stupid. Kids are having sex in middle school. STDs are spreading, and rather than allow for reasonable education you'd rather stick your head in the same and pretend nothing is happening.

You’re hopelessly devoted to woke.

And yet another bogus “the sky is falling” argument from a liberal - STDs are spreading because of kids in middle schools, so the state should step in and solve all our problems. Sorry, not in this country, cupcake.

BTW, abortion is murder.

Can we all start talking about something fun like global warming now?

I'm so tired of conservatives using "indoctrination" as an excuse not to teach anything about LGBT people. I grew up in the 80's and guess what sex-ed was only about straight people and I'm still gay!!! Teaching kids that LGBT people exist will NOT turn them gay! People are born that way and nothing a teacher says will change that. Straight kids are still going to be straight even after learning about gay and trans people. When every medical organizations recommends something people need to shut up and listen already.

Now can we close this tread and go back to talking about theme parks?

Haha, Sure Tim! Climate change is a natural occurrence that has been happening for millions of years, it will continue to happen reciprocally about every 100,000 years as it always has, as studied, measured and agreed upon by scientists, and there is very little men and women (again, only two genders) of our Earth can do to keep it from happening, just short of nuking the entire planet. We don’t have the power to change the Earth’s warm periods or ice ages with any of the private or state proposed “green initiatives”, just like we don’t have the power to change a man into a woman and a woman into a man. “Green initiatives” are simply just another money grab.

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2948/milankovitch-orbital-cycles-and-their-role-in-earths-climate/

Whatever happened to the 100 post limit on here?

Just sayin’…

Francis, you forgot about the sexualization part. Why do elementary school children need to be taught about sex by the state? It’s immoral and perverted.

Disney is part of the theme park world and they have opened up their doors to perversion. This is why this thread has been opened and this is why it is still ticking with well over 100 posts.

@ Keith S
I read your post with great interest. I found it thought provoking and was pleased that I'm not the only one who thinks that there's something wrong with the indoctrination of children behind the parents' backs.

@Tim H
That's too hot of a subject. I'd gladly get back to Theme Park stories though.

@ Chad H
Please don't call me a liar just because you can't deal with the uncomfortable truth.

Unlike your comments my post was neither rude or antagonistic. It was not designed to do anything more than draw attention to what's going on in schools in the UK. I know nothing about schools in the USA.
I hope you read some other contributions here. Not just mine.
You challenged the veracity of my post simply because you disagreed with it.
You are fully entitled to your opinion but please accept that everyone else is entitled to theirs too. After all a forum is an exchange of ideas surely.

I thought this thread was supposed to be about the extraordinary box office success of Disney's new live-action remake of 'The Little Mermaid' -- $472,768,383 and climbing!

Extraordinary in its failure. It’s walk, not run, is about done. And it will finish deep in the red, well below its $700m break even. Poor Disney, poor Iger. So who should Disney fire…NEXT?

Republicans Served As The Catalysts For the 19th Amendment
By Rep. Virginia Foxx
Washington, August 26, 2020

I hear repeatedly from my constituents that students are not learning the history of our country, and it is truly unfortunate. Where we are as a country today is a direct result of our past. The significant events that shaped the United States are not being taught, or explained, in a fashion that is reflective of the facts. As a direct result, modern opinions that have been formed are mired in inaccuracies. It is high time that the record is corrected, and the conversation is set straight.

A century ago, a monumental shift occurred within the Constitution that undeniably changed the course of our democracy: the passage of the 19th Amendment. Today, students across the United States flip through pages of textbooks and read about how this change came to fruition. However, when it comes to learning about the pivotal role that Republican suffragists played – in particular, Republicans within Congress who helped usher in this change – the ink runs dry. While the campaign for a woman’s right to vote is commonly referred to as a “progressive movement”, it is often misconstrued as a movement that was spurred by the platform of today’s Democrat Party. The simple truth is that history tells a different story.

On May 21, 1919, an Illinois Republican by the name of James Mann reintroduced the 19th Amendment in the House of Representatives and it passed by a vote of 304 to 89. It was a decisive victory, and the split among Democrats and Republicans was staggering. In all, over 200 Republicans voted in favor of the 19th Amendment, while only 102 Democrats voted alongside them. Subsequently, on June 4, 1919, the 19th Amendment passed the Senate by a vote of 56 to 25. Once again, the split among Democrats and Republicans was notable: eighty-two percent of Republicans voted in favor of the amendment while only forty-one percent of their Democrat colleagues concurred.

The very next year in March of 1920, 36 states ratified the 19th Amendment, and the infighting within state legislatures was steadily approaching a crescendo. Many Democrat-controlled legislatures opposed ratification, and out of those 36 states that ratified, 26 were Republican. Following ratification, over eight million women voted in the November presidential election that same year. What was the result? A 26.2 percentage-point victory for Warren G. Harding, a proud Ohio Republican who was a staunch advocate for women’s suffrage. This is not a mere coincidence; it was a direct reflection of how Republicans helped lead the charge for women’s rights.

It’s fitting that we have this conversation, but more importantly, it’s paramount that the record is clear on where both parties stood during this saga in our nation’s history. We owe it to the men and women who fought to safeguard women’s rights, and we would be doing them a tremendous disservice if we let their work – and the stories of their victories – become deviated from the truth. One of the indispensable tools that I turn to quite often for perspective is the Library of Congress. With so many resources that are readily available to the public, you can view our nation’s history through a purely objective lens. History is the ultimate arbiter of who deserves credit for resolving the significant events that have helped shape our country.

And again, you think the Republicans of a century ago are the same as today, you need to bone up on current events. In case you haven't noticed, this same party is now trying to take away women's rights.

Wrong, MikeW, they are specifically trying to protect the rights of an innocent individual - the baby. Two individuals are directly affected by a pregnancy and/or abortion, the mother and the child. Neither one can be excluded. Women, or anyone for that matter, have the right to do what they want with their body as long as it doesn’t affect another individual. Having an abortion directly affects the life and ultimately the death of the baby, thus it is murder. Do you support the murder of children, MikeW? Why do liberals get this all mixed up?

Republicans are protecting women’s rights, Democrats are not:

House Republicans pass bill restricting transgender athletes from women’s sports
The legislation is a key part of the GOP’s education agenda.
McCarthy cites ‘fairness’ on bill restricting transgender athletes
By BIANCA QUILANTAN
04/20/2023

House Republicans approved their measure to restrict transgender students from playing on women’s sports teams on a 219-203 vote Thursday morning.

The legislation — H.R. 734 (118) — is a key part of the GOP’s education agenda and mirrors more than 20 laws that have been adopted in states across the country. It bars transgender women from playing on teams consistent with their gender identity and amends Title IX, the federal education law that bars sex-based discrimination, to define sex as based solely on a person’s reproductive biology and genetics at birth.

Transgender students, however, would be able to practice or train with a program designated for women or girls.
During debate over the bill on Wednesday, several GOP lawmakers argued the bill was necessary because of the Biden administration’s new proposed Title IX rule on athletics eligibility that would allow transgender girls to play sports with some limitations. Democrats pushed back by invoking Utah Gov. Spencer Cox in their defense of transgender women and girls. Cox, a Republican, vetoed a similar sports ban in the state and acknowledged several challenges transgender students face.

The bill has no chance of becoming law as it is likely to stall in the Democrat-controlled Senate, and President Joe Biden has already announced that he would veto the bill if it were to reach his desk.

Several lawmakers did not vote on the bill, including 10 Democrats and 3 Republicans.

Amendments: Lawmakers passed by voice vote an amendment from Rep. Andy Ogles (R-Tenn.) that would clarify that the term “athletic programs and activities” in the bill includes any activities where you have to participate on a team.

Additionally, Republicans shored up enough votes to add an amendment from Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) that would direct the Government Accountability Office to lead a study on “the adverse psychological, developmental, participatory and sociological results to girls” from allowing transgender girls to play sports. GAO would also investigate “hostile environment creation, sexual assault and sexual harassment” from a decision to allow transgender students to play on girls sports teams.

“Republicans are following the science,” Mace said on the floor. “We are not confused about the differences between biological men and biological women. And as a woman who is pro LGBTQ, I don’t care how you dress, I don’t care what pronoun you take, I don’t care if you change your gender, but we ought to protect biological women and girls and their athletics and their achievements.”

Reaction: Several Democratic and civil rights groups supporting transgender students slammed the bill’s passage as a political attack under the guise of protecting women’s sports.

“We will not let anti-LGBTQI+ Republicans — who have refused to work with us on addressing real gender equity issues— use ‘protecting women’ as an excuse to attack trans youth,” said Democratic Women’s Caucus Chair Lois Frankel in a statement. “When my Republican colleagues want to join with us to address the actual pressing issues impacting girls’ and women’s sports, I stand ready to work with them.”

The Human Rights Campaign said 40 athletes, including Megan Rapinoe, CeCe Telfer and Chris Mosier, signed a letter this month that rebuked a federal anti-transgender sports ban. HRC President Kelley Robinson in a statement said because the bill has no chance of becoming law, “this is purely a waste of time at the expense of an already marginalized population.”

“Rather than focus their energy on doing literally anything to improve the lives of children, House Republicans have prioritized attacking transgender youth purely as a political ploy,” Robinson said.

Some Democrats, ahead of the vote, shrugged off the legislation and criticized Republicans’ priorities.

“These issues always wind up backfiring eventually. This is them trying to keep a certain segment of that extreme MAGA base happy,” said Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.), the chair of the Equality Caucus.

Conservative groups and cisgender women athletes they represent lauded the bill’s passage saying it reaffirms the promise of equal opportunity for women in Title IX.

“I want to ensure no other girl experiences the emotional pain and lost opportunities I experienced in high school,” said Selina Soule, a former high school track and field athlete whose challenge against a Connecticut policy on transgender athletes will be heard by the full 2nd Circuit, in a statement. “There are clear biological differences between men and women and I experienced that firsthand, which is why I’m very grateful for the U.S. House passing this bill.”

Nicholas Wu contributed to this report.

KS: "... do what they want with there body as ..."

Me: It's spelled "their". Just trying to help you out big guy. So anyway, what's your opinion about reproductive rights?

OMG - Can we please STOP!!!!

This is NOT a political website. It's a theme park website.

While I strongly believe in the Freedom of Speech/Expression, there are appropriate times and places to express that freedom. These 10,000 word philosophical diatribes will not change how anyone feels about the polarizing issues that are trying to be injected into various theme park discussions here.

I don't understand the purpose of Keith's nonsense, and this is coming from someone who generally aligns themselves on the conservative side of the political spectrum. PLEASE, can we get back to more entertaining topics like roller coasters, dark rides, and theme parks.

TH, you should review your posts for errors before you confront others about their’s, hypocrite.

Russell, no we cannot, as long as only one side of politics (the liberal side) continues to get exposure and support on TPI, I will continue to offer the alternate side as I please. BTW, I didn’t start talking politics on TPI until TPI started dumping it on us.
And for everyone outside of Florida and for those liberals inside of Florida, it’s called The Parental Rights in Education Bill.

@Russell: I am sure a lot of people feel the same way you do. So let's explore the options when it comes to dealing with a problematic creature like Keith Schneider. I mean, there are certainly some immediate options..

First, we can (and should) resolve (moving forward) to comport ourselves in a civil manner when commenting or confronting another poster. Disagree without making personal attacks. A lot of us have been hitting the ball around TPI for more than a decade. We are acquaintances -- if only on-line. Certainly we can treat each other amicably.

Second, we can simply ignore Keith Schneider. Don't take the bait. He is fundamentally a parasite who craves attention. Unfortunately for him, he may lack the means or technical ability to launch his own platform. Either that or he has tried to do so (perhaps by creating something like a YouTube channel or Facebook page) and has not generated any traffic. Regardless, he has decided to attach himself to TPI. As long as he gets attention and he stays within the TPI terms of service, I guess he can continue to post. I for one, will start my own effort and simply refrain from engaging with him beginning in 3, 2, 1 ... :o)

Third, our pal Mr. Niles can explore the option of adding a "block" or "ignore" function to the site. This would mean anyone who has decided they'd had enough of another poster's content, they could simply click the "off switch" and move on. Speaking for myself, I would PAY A PREMIUM to TPI if that option were made available.

In the meantime, I'll close out my last post on this thread wishing everyone a pleasant weekend.

There certainly are a few “assumers” on TPI.

Russell, you maybe right that this thread “will not change how anyone feels about (these) polarizing issues”, but at least more than one side is being expressed.

I’ll tell you what, I’ll cease and desist on subjects and comments about politics as long as TPI does. Otherwise, all bets are off. If we agree to only talk about theme parks, then let’s do so.

I think TH has the right approach. I’m starting to realize that I've frequently let myself engage in a back and forth with Mr. Schneider that gets a little out of hand, and am probably coming off as petty and gullible.

Therefore, I have reached a solution to this impasse. If I see the name “Keith Schneider” at the top of a post, I will simply be disinclined to read it.

Well then, may the ostracism begin!

Disney may only have one movie break even this year. The rest will go down as losses. This company has lost it's mojo for pretty much everything.

Huge payment to Comcast on the horizon, and they don;t have enough operating cash to cover a fraction of it.

The payment for Hulu actually buys them something. Additionally, if Comcast has the ability to pull its content from Hulu post-settlement, it reduces its value during arbitration and, in turn, the amount of the buyout's price tag. And finally, do you really think a company with a market cap north of $170 billion won't be able to finance a payout? Please.

NB, you're not objectively evaluating Disney's current state-of-affairs. You are actually hoping for the company to fail -- even if it has an impact on the lives of those who depend on it as employees.

Way to keep things classy.

If anything, Warner Bros is even in worse shape than Disney with their flops, content cuts and other messes like trying to gut TCM.

Facts Over Feelings: Don’t Let Emotions Cloud Rationality
By Kameron Brooke - November 7, 2022
The Baylor Lariat

For as long as I can remember, I have been an extremely emotional person. I feel everything deeply. In the past, it was very difficult for me to handle situations rationally because I let my emotions cloud the truth and prevent me from being objective.

Throughout my journey, I have come to learn that separation of the two is one of the most important things one can master.

I believe when one lacks the ability to separate emotion and objectivity, they start to embody the idea that another person’s feelings are their fault and vice versa. I’ve struggled a lot with this. When I was hurt, it must have been someone else’s fault. However, I’ve been able to change my perspective of myself and others and who should be accountable for what.

I think emotions should always be embraced and allowed to flow through you. However, I used to place a high value on my feelings, and the mindset I had was that anything I felt was the truth. The results of that mindset forced me to realize that holding my emotions higher than objectivity caused an immense amount of harm.

Facts over feelings is important in general, and I think it’s even more important when it comes to being hurt by others. Personally, that’s when my emotions are at their highest. However, when my feelings are hurt, it doesn’t automatically mean there is someone to blame.

I am just reacting. I’ve projected my feelings onto others because I felt that if I was hurt, someone should be accountable for that hurt, even if they didn’t intentionally cause it.

A harsh reality that took me a long time to accept is that I am accountable for my own feelings. People are accountable for harm and are harmful every day. So, your feelings could get hurt 24/7 if you let them. That is completely up to you. It is up to you to understand your own emotions and have a level of trust in those who love you.

Leon F. Seltzer wrote a Psychology Today article entitled “Hurt Feelings Come From Hurt Thoughts.”

“I think it’s invaluable when someone triggers your sadness, anxiety, anger, or any other negative emotion, to reflect on just what caused these disturbing feelings,” Seltzer said in the article. “It’s crucial to recognize that your feelings emerged secondary to your self-talk.”

I will always value my emotions, and I think my sensitivity is a gift. I think it allows me to love harder and connect to people more deeply, which is something that brings me a ton of joy.

However, like everyone else, I’ve had my fair share of emotional wounds. The difference is that I am able to recognize when my emotions are the result of my own assumptions and reactions. I still feel everything, but now I feel clearly.

Disney Stock Gets a Downgrade After Analysts Cite These Five Worries
By Brian Swint

Disney got a downgrade by analysts over fears growth at its video streaming unit has stalled and expectations for the parks division are too high.

KeyBanc analysts led by Brandon Nispel lowered the rating on Disney (ticker: DIS) shares to Sector Weight from Overweight and gave them a price target of $85.

“While Disney appears less expensive versus its historical average, we believe the stock is unlikely to work until a number of items have line of sight to being resolved,” they said in a note dated June 28.

They noted five key worries. Attendance at the U.S. theme parks has been weak, making the company’s targets for the year seem too ambitious. The Disney+ streaming service has seen sluggish subscriber growth. The price of the new ESPN sports streaming service looks too high. Content distribution isn’t as profitable as hoped, and the financial setup looks like last year, when shares fell, they said.

Disney fell 0.7% to $88.25 in premarket trading. Even after bringing back CEO Bob Iger, the stock remains well below the peak of almost $200 it hit in early 2021. The company has announced some 7,000 job cuts to help turn things around.

Who should Disney fire next?

Indiana Jones 5 Opening Weekend Box Office Ends Up Even Worse Than Solo
BY BRENNAN KLEIN

Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny opens at the lower end of projections, a disappointing result that was outperformed by Solo: A Star Wars Story.

Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny can't even compete with Solo in its opening weekend. The movie, which opened in theaters on June 30, has been billed as the final adventure for superstar Harrison Ford in the title role, which originated in 1981's Raiders of the Lost Ark. Dial of Destiny, which also stars Phoebe Waller-Bridge as Jones' goddaughter Helena Shaw, is set against the backdrop of the Space Race and sees Indy fighting to prevent an ancient artifact from falling into the hands of an ex-Nazi scientist.

Per Deadline, the Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny box office is going to close its opening weekend with a hugely disappointing total at the domestic box office. As of Sunday morning, it is projected to reach a 3-day total of $60 million. This is far below the movie's original projections, landing even lower than Lucasfilm's 2018 flop Solo: A Star Wars Story, which opened with a 3-day total of $84.4 million.

Why Indiana Jones 5 Is Tanking So Hard
There are many factors that should have made Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny a surefire hit. For one thing, it has been well-publicized that the movie will be Harrison Ford's final outing in the role, and final entries in franchises tend to get a box office boost. For another, it was released on a holiday weekend in the U.S. as Independence Day is on Tuesday, giving some workers an extended 4-day weekend.

However, that has clearly not turned out to be the case. It's probable that the film's opening weekend performance was impacted by the Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny Rotten Tomatoes score, which debuted Rotten in May after its Cannes premiere. Although the movie has crossed over to become Fresh in the intervening month and a half, there was a lot of time for audiences to find out about this reaction and sour on the movie.

While this doesn't account for its low total, Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny's production budget is a huge factor in the movie's grim future prospects. The budget has been estimated to be as high as $329 million before factoring in publicity costs that were likely $100 million or more. With such a high budget and an inflated run time that decreases the number of possible screenings per day, the movie was setting itself up to not turn out much of a profit no matter what.

Who should Disney fire next?

It got destroyed in China due to it coming out at the same time as a mega Chinese hit!

Meanwhile, "Elemental" has been showing legs. Domestically $109 million, globally $251 million and still going (it finished this past weekend at #4). Blame Disney marketing not making it clear what the movie was about for weaker opening and good word of mouth getting more people to it.

Yet another woke Disney flop that will lose them millions of dollars.

Has anyone ever read the original story "The little mermaid" , as written by Hans Christian Andersen ? (No sweet brushed off translations for soft kids, just the original !...)
You would be amased how radically deviated all the film versions are... Disney and others.
It happens with the majority of old stories. When turned into film, half a century later, or 100, 150, 200 years later... suddenly the real intentions of the autour get destroyed by the film director. It's OK.. if a film is produced, with the announcement : "loosely based on XXX" , and then being so honest NOT using the original title of the novel/story/fairy tale. What the film directors are doing with material OUT of IP rights (!!!!) is blunt literature abuse.
It happens over and over again.
There are exceptions...
W.Disney 'Pinocchio' was not too (!!) destructive to the original story. The Disney CORPORATION remake, was a monstruous slimey-sugar-version attack on the literary work of Carlo Collodi. The 2019 filmversion of Matteo Garrone, is an artistic masterpiece, which is the ONLY one, actually respecting the work of Collodi (written for... an adult public, NOT kids...)
So it goes...

Box Office Mojo this morning: $545,818,966. According to research firm EntTelligence, in 2022 the average ticket price worldwide $11.75. This means approximately 46.4 million people went out to see the film in theaters.

TH, I thought you were done with this thread. So you’re a hypocrite and a liar?
TLM is $150m in the red, and Disney is officially dead.
Who should Disney fire…NEXT!

The Super Mario Bros. Box Office Mojo this morning: $1,345,642,802. According to research firm EntTelligence, in 2022 the average ticket price worldwide $11.75. This means approximately 114.5 million people went out to see the film in theaters, 2.5X more the amount of people that saw TLM, and its production costs were 1.5X less than TLM.

I wouldn't say Disney is officially dead, they are still leading the global box office as of July, but they certainly need to scale back those massive budgets...or else, lol.

For 2023, they are at 3.4 billion with 7 movies, Universal is at 2.89 billion with 14 movies, Sony is 1.1 billion with 15 movies...WB & Paramount follow with global takes in the millions.

According to Deadline, as of July, "Disney global take so far this year is 3.9x that of Paramount’s ($871M with five movies), 3.8x that of Warner Bros ($898M with six movies) and 3.1x that of Sony ($1.1 billion with 15 movies) and more than Paramount and Warner Bros combined. Universal is second for the year to date with an estimated $2.89 billion off 14 titles, propelled by Illumination’s Super Mario Bros at $1.33 billion, the highest grossing film of 2023 YTD."

I think Disney needs to seriously scale back on cost, as well as slowing down on the Marvel & Star Wars content.

I don't think ANYTHING is gonna pass Super Mario Bros this year, that's the film to beat & it doesn't seem like anything is gonna come close to it. Still, Disney will most likely take the global #1 spot at the end of the year.

It will be interesting to see how Barbie & Oppenheimer perform...MI Dead Reckoning did well, but those #'s were just a tad better than Indy's, with a similar budget.

Barbie & Oppenheimer seem to be the final (potential) chances to ignite the summer box office.

@Jay - I was pretty surprised by Mission Impossible's lower than expected debut. It still did well, but is showing that even blockbuster movies need to be recalibrated from a P&L perspective. You can only throw so much money into a movie before you start spending dollars to chase dimes. While so many of these big budget movies are getting into the $200M budget territory, it's proving more difficult to recoup those costs than pre-pandemic.

As has been reiterated over and over (and by Iger himself), oversaturation is really starting to kill the beast. There are so few "event" movies anymore, mostly because every release is marketed as an "event". It's even worse when those event movies are coming from the same studio. When content is further diluted by the insatiable need for streaming services, it make matters even worse.

Throw dueling talent strikes into the mixer, and Hollywood could be in for a massive reorganization, not necessarily at the studio level, but the way content providers work and deliver their talents to the masses. We could be headed towards a massive shift in the way entertainment is delivered and consumed, perhaps even more monumental than when streaming first emerged.

More exec firings won’t be enough, it’s time for Disney to start selling off it’s assets - sell, sell, sell!

Selling assets is a 2-way street. Disney may want to sell its underperforming entities, but someone has to want to buy them. This isn't really a great environment for purchasing large assets, particularly given the cost of money right now. It's possible they could spin certain properties off into their own, but it's not going to provide the infusion of cash that Disney would need to shed these assets.

And how did Disney cast the live action Snow White movie currently in production? Oh they’re so progressive, so woke. Can’t wait for that abomination to drop. Go broke, Disney.

Keith, do you really want Disney to go broke? You don't like any of their IP's or parks anymore?

The best of Disney is in the past.
Bring back Eisner! His term may have ended poorly, but his efforts, expansions and content was far better than what Disney’s is today. Get out of politics and the accompanying culture war and get back to wholesome family entertainment, Disney. Otherwise, good luck going broke.

While you might prefer Eisner's politics over Iger as the CEO of a major corporation, Eisner didn't have the greatest record when it came to running the theme parks. Disney has spent billions post-Eisner fixing mistakes caused by the shrewd cost cutting he mandated during his tenure.

As a theme park website, I think this audience would absolutely prefer to stick with Iger and his drive to invest smartly in the parks and continue to drive that business unit forward.

Eisner opened seven Disney theme parks during his 21 year tenure, Iger opened one. Enough said. And just in case you didn’t know, attendance is down at all Disney theme parks, so the smart investment (and the politics) isn’t working.

Even Eisner acknowledges his mistakes with Euro Disney, early California Adventure and more.

And then…?

C'mon Keith, Eisner overstayed his welcome by about ten years. Iger was/is a much better CEO as far as park development and improvement are concerned.

And you (and me, and the vast majority of people) need to stop looking at the situation through a single lens. Disney is a large conglomerate trying to position itself in complex times. Some things they will do will please some people and offend others. That's just the world we live in now.

We all just have to do a better job of taking the good from a situation and leaving the dross on the floor or we'll drive ourselves crazy and start hanging out in the conspiracy theory websites.

I firmly disagree, Tim. I’ll ask you a question to prove my point. Has UOR been following an Iger type model of expansion or an Eisner type model of expansion? And why?

Different times call for different approaches.

During the period that Eisner was rapidly expanding the Disney footprint around the world, he could get away with building relatively cheap (by Disney standards) small parks around the world as long as they weren't a castle park. The castle parks have to be top notch because they are the flagship parks and draw in the visitors. Eisner also didn't have to expand the Disney footprint during a period when Disney had a serious competitor in the theme park industry. Disney was and still is the industry leader when it comes to themed entertainment venues.

Three things changed the dynamic and exposed the Eisner expansion model as flawed. (1) Universal built IOA which at the time was better than any of the non-castle parks owned and built by Disney IMO. (2) Universal was purchased by Comcast and finally had a stable corporate structure with deep pockets that was willing to invest in the parks. (3) Universal got the rights to the Harry Potter franchise and added it to all of their parks, and in the process set the standard for providing immersive, themed environments.

Iger has had to expand and improve the Disney parks for most of his leadership tenure in a somewhat saturated market with a comparable competitor just a short drive away from their parks in the United States. (Yeah, I know USH is still too much of a pig with lipstick, but they are improving it within the constraints that they have.) So Iger has had to make improvements slowly in a calculated manner that make sense for Disney as the industry leader from both the quality and economic perspectives.

Now, to go back to your questions, there really are no Eisner or Iger models for park expansion. I'd say there is a Disney model that is dependent on market conditions that currently are changing rapidly, and I strongly believe that Iger adapted to the changing market conditions far better than Eisner did in the latter half of his tenure as Disney CEO.

Haha, Iger’s best at riding on Eisner’s coattails!
At the beginning of Iger’s tenure, he did very little with the theme parks until he was forced to because of Harry Potter. Remember those times, Tim? Remember all the complaints about Disney (with Iger) doing as little as they had to with their theme parks until they had no other choice but to answer Universal’s opening of WWoHP?
Eisner, on the other hand, aggressively expanded Disney theme parks and entertainment throughout his tenure, domestically and internationally. And he did it with way more original content than Iger ever did. To put it simply, the Iger era bought its entertainment, the Eisner era created it. The Disney Renaissance (of the animation studio) was Eisner. What does Iger do, he makes live action remakes of Eisner era movies and buys Lucasfilm and Marvel.
When Universal first built their studios park in Orlando, Eisner preemptively answered with Disney-MGM Studios. When Universal built IOA, Eisner answered again with DAK. Now that Universal is building UEU, Iger answers with…nothing. Yes, Iger’s a wizard with those theme parks, and Disney’s theme park attendance is on the decline across the board.
The Eisner model is to continually expand by rapidly building more and more theme parks and water parks, themed resort hotels, and entire all encompassing resort complexes. With Eisner, Disney theme park resorts were always miles ahead of the competition. It’s no wonder Universal Orlando Resort decided to follow Eisner’s model of expansion to a T, and Universal is absolutely benefiting from it, mostly because of Disney and ultimately Iger’s inaction.
Who should Disney fire next? How about Iger.

Considering that the time period that you're talking about covers 35-40 years, I don't think you can make a blanket assessment in the comparison.

Both Eisner and Iger have strengths and weaknesses in their management styles, and if I had to pick one based on his managemement style and not his politics, I would go with Iger.

Disney Hits Lowest Box Office Opening For Theme Park Movie Since 2003's OG Haunted Mansion
BY BRENNAN KLEIN

Disney just scored the lowest opening weekend gross for a theme park-inspired movie since the original Haunted Mansion two decades ago.

Disney's latest movie adaptation of the Haunted Mansion theme park attraction has had a disappointing opening weekend, earning less than expected at $24-$25 million.
This is the second Haunted Mansion film, following the 2003 version with Eddie Murphy, and despite a star-studded cast, it has failed to make a big impact at the box office.
While it may surpass the opening weekend of the 2003 movie, Haunted Mansion still ranks as one of Disney's lowest-performing theme park adaptations, standing among movies like Mission to Mars and The Country Bears.

Haunted Mansion has given Disney its lowest opening weekend for a movie adapted from a theme park attraction in two decades. The movie, which opened in theaters on July 28, is the second adaptation of the iconic theme park attraction of the same name; it was originally made into a movie starring Eddie Murphy in 2003. This new iteration features a star-studded cast that includes Rosario Dawson, LaKeith Stanfield, Tiffany Haddish, Owen Wilson, Danny DeVito, Dan Levy, Jamie Lee Curtis, and Jared Leto.

Per The Hollywood Reporter, the Haunted Mansion box office scored an inauspicious opening, with its 3-day total falling below initial expectations at $24-$25 million. This will either place it slightly under or slightly over the opening weekend of 2003's original The Haunted Mansion, which earned $24.3 million, not adjusted for inflation. If it ranks higher than the 2003 movie, Haunted Mansion will still have the fourth-worst opening of any Disney theme park movie, behind The Haunted Mansion, 2000's Mission to Mars ($22.9 million), and 2002's The Country Bears ($5.3 million).

Why Haunted Mansion is Underperforming at the Box Office
The-Ghost-Host-The-Haunted-Mansion-2023
Haunted Mansion is off to a grim start. Considering the fact that it cost $150 million to make, there is every chance that it may not even earn back its production budget, let alone its publicity and advertising budget. In order to be considered profitable at all, it has been estimated that it needs to hit the even higher benchmark of $314 million.

There are a few reasons why Haunted Mansion is underperforming. The first is the ongoing SAG-AFTRA strike, in which actors striking for fair pay are not participating in promotional campaigns for struck productions. The Haunted Mansion premiere saw costumed Disney characters walking its red carpet instead of the movie's stars, and a lack of publicity over the past two weeks has likely gouged its chances at making a profit, proving how important actors are to selling their projects.

In addition to the strike and having to compete with last weekend's box office juggernauts Barbie and Oppenheimer, Haunted Mansion has also not been well received by critics. At the time of writing, it currently holds a 41 percent score on Rotten Tomatoes, though the audience score is significantly higher at 85 percent. Nevertheless, this could have scared away additional viewers who were on the fence about venturing out to see the new movie.

Who should Disney fire next?

Haunted Mansion just wasn't a very good movie, and going up against "Barbenheimer", it's no wonder it fell short of expectations. It's definitely a confluence of a number of different variables going against the release, but it is ultimately a poor production that was not going to wow audiences even if it wasn't marginalized by one of the biggest 1-2 punches in movie history, a strike that limited publicity, and a curious release date.

As far as "star-studded cast", I think the writer here loves hyperbole and continues it by comparing the current release to a very limited number of former Disney movies over the past 20 years - the only other films Disney has made based on attractions are the POTC series (all hits, though diminishing returns due to escalating budgets and waning interest), Tomorrowland, and Jungle Cruise. That's a pretty small sample size.

I just don't understand why this movie is coming out in summer. I'm pretty sure this would have done better in October no?

It reminds me of 30 years ago, folks were asking same question on Hocus Pocus. "Why release a Halloween-themed movie in July?"

In this instance, I think an October release date would've been much better ..but the recent Disney's budgets are also a HUGE issue.

Opening in the shadow of The Barbie / Oppenheimer combo pretty much sealed its fate. I'm surprised it did as well as it did!

I think this will be an eye opener for Disney in terms of their budgets...that's the biggest issue.

Oh the budgets are out of control and not just Disney either. I read that Amazon spy show "Citadel" cost $250 million and didn't look like it was worth a quarter of that.

@Ruseell: Did you see 'The Haunted Mansion'?

@TH yeah, he wrote about it here: https://www.themeparkinsider.com/discussion/thread.cfm?page=2638

Just stop throwing good money after bad by relentlessly making poorly conceived live-action remakes of classic Disney animation films.
Perhaps some bright spark at Disney will hit upon the concept of making animated versions of classic live action movies ?
Let's all hope not.
By the way what are the odds that Snow White doesn't make the big screen as it seems doomed to abject failure on a number of levels ?

Just to throw in, as of August 6:

* Little Mermaid global take: $564.2 million

* Elemental global take: $423.7 million

Bomb after bomb after bomb after bomb…

Little Mermaid & Elemental aren't necessarily bombs...they are losses though. There is a tier system, as individual films, they wouldn't rank as bombs. Elemental, after its low opening, showed some staying power.

It is actually really close to Cars 3 box office total, and once again...The Good Dinosaur retains its spot as the lowest Pixar theatrical release.

WB's The Flash would be considered a bomb, as it loss is estimated to be at 200 million dollars. TLM is estimated to be at 20 million. Both could be could be considered disappointments, but not in the same category.

When ranking box office exit scores for the summer. TLM will be in the same tier that MI 7 & Indy will be in...Not the hits they were expected to be, but not all out disasters.

If we are being fair, The Flash is probably the biggest bomb of the season...the others are going to rank (when box office rankings are done for the quarter) as under performers for sure, but Barry Allen takes the prize for this summers biggest loss.

Maybe some movies in franchises are viewed as loss-leaders just to keep the franchise going ?
I can't think of any other reason why they would put out films like Indiana Jones or Predator 25 etc.
Sometimes you have to have to accept that a franchise has a limited appeal and should be left alone rather than risk ruining it's reputation.
Although , to be honest, I did see Mission Impossible and thought it to be very entertaining fare which did no harm to it's franchise imho.

TLM will lose $150 million, Elemental $150 million and Indy $300 million. That’s bombing.

@ JustSaying, there's a market for legacy sequels...and when there is a success, it spurns others to revisit IP's and hope the original fanbase shows up (as well as attracting new fans).

Obviously Top Gun: Maverick is the benchmark...but few reach those heights. But even mid range hits can continue the franchise.(i.e. Ghostbusters: Afterlife did well, so the franchise will continue with the next film)

I wouldn't necessarily add Mission Impossible to that category, as that franchise has been consistently releasing films (like Fast & Furious).

@ Kieth, those are the projected losses, they are still leading the #1 studio this year. All three of the movies lost money, no doubt.

What studios would you say...currently has great slate, box office or other wise for the year? Or how would you rank & view the other studios?

We can all debate the level of "bomb" associated with each of these Disney summer releases. Indy was a bomb by pretty much any definition. LTM lost money, and a pretty significant sum. Elemental has had legs, but its low opening weekend and HUGE Pixar cost of production has guaranteed that it too will lose a boat load of money. When trade publications have titles like this: Disney Is The Big Loser Of Summer 2023 - Examining Its $900 Million Worth Of Box Office Disappointments -- You have a problem. Even GOTG underperformed expectations. Disney has killed the proverbial golden goose. Whether it is awful movies: Indy 5, or perceived "wokeness:" Elemental and its non-binary element!?!? Or casting controversies, I am looking at you Snow White remake that is taking hits from all sides.

Disney has alienated a portion of their audience. That, there is not debating...there is a segment of the audience who are now not turning up for Disney movies. How big that population is, I don't know, and I don't think anyone truly knows. Maybe they come back for the next Avengers...maybe they don't. The truth is that Disney made a decision to introduce plot elements into movies aimed at children that a significant number of customers are uncomfortable with. I've heard parents ask why everything is sexualized. Now was Lightyear a flop because of those plot points and parents not wanting to talk to a 4 year old about them? Or, did it flop because it was a truly awful movie that destroyed the legacy of Toy Story? It's probably a little of both. But, in a slowing economy do you want to be the movie, company, theme park that 100% of people consider, or the one that a % doesn't?

MLB, those are some interesting points..and I agree there is a bit of a gray area.

For me, I do believe the "political aspect" is being oversold.

Has Disney alienated a portion of their audience? Yes...is this anything new? No. We can go back decades, in the 90's there were stories of how Disney has lost its way, its lost fans, etc. There was a save Disney movement in the 90's. Years before, In the 80's, the animation studio / output crashed & burned...the situation was dire. Black Cauldron, Oliver & Co. & more, were box office failures.

The reason there's a Disney Renaissance was because it was doom & gloom before. They alienated people in the 80's, 90's, 00's, and now. But currently people can use their social media handles to voice their opinions.

The access to information magnifies things. With social media & thousands of so called "media" outlets, blogs, publications. Everyone has a platform & can easily share their views / opinions & these can be elevated into the presumption that it mirrors society. I've mentioned this before, but if one were to apply the current "social filter" to those Renaissance films...they would be considered bad.

In terms of box office, we'll see. They have enough IP's...and a few more Avatar sequels on the docket.

Look at the success of Barbie, a movie that by all means that checks every "wokeness" box...that movie is doing crazy numbers worldwide. My point is, there's a large percentage of people / society who aren't in the "for or against" camp when it comes to Disney (or companies in general).

If they want to go to the theme park, they'll go. If they don't want to watch a Disney movie, they won't. It has nothing to do with the company.

For a large percentage of people, it's just a corporation. They'll agree with some stuff, and not other stuff...There's not a "All for Disney or All against Disney" mindset. They won't all out boycott or full on support.

"I've heard parents ask why everything is sexualized."

were they asking this when princes were kissing half-dead or sleeping women?

Jay R.: "For me, I do believe the "political aspect" is being oversold."

Me: Absolutely! The most anti-Disney, anti-woke political figure (Presidential candidate) is currently polling in the low teens, just fired his campaign manager and has lost his biggest cash contributor. Oops.

Jay R.: "Has Disney alienated a portion of their audience? Yes...is this anything new? No."

Me: On the money! Although I think you could/should replace the words "their audience" with the words "general public". Such consumers have never been fascinated by Disney.

Jay R.: "Look at the success of 'Barbie', a movie that by all means that checks every "wokeness" box...that movie is doing crazy numbers worldwide."

Me: Bullseye, again! And the list of underperforming films -- including 'The Flash', Mission Impossible 7, and 'Oppenheimer' -- has certainly been noteworthy.

And while we still don't have any published, detailed data proving beyond a reasonable doubt that so-called "woke" content has turned away consumers who were traditional customers of any particular movie franchise or studio, there remains the reality that people will wait for films to show up on a streaming service they are already paying for. A friend wanted me to take her to see 'Haunted Mansion'. Tickets, a large popcorn, one beer and one glass of wine cost us $58. Watching the film in our living room on Disney+ ($12.47 - forty cents a day) with the same snacks would be less than ten bucks -- maybe less than five.

There was an article published on 'What to Watch' that warned consumers "You can't stream Barbie anytime soon: Here's Why?" Hmmm. Turns out you can already pre-order the flick on Amazon Prime, and that we can all dress in pink and watch how life in plastic is fantastic starting in October/November. If we are going to consider the unfounded claim that "woke" content is having an impact on studio receipts it seems more than reasonable to assume that quick availability on streaming platforms is having a similar effect.

TH, by what metric has Oppenheimer underperformed? It’s made over five times its production budget, and still climbing.

I think TH brings up some excellent points here, particularly with his "general public" comment, which speaks directly to the issues the studio is having right now. Because Disney has become virtually ubiquitous in the pop culture lexicon, they have to cast the widest net possible to achieve success. Their productions have massive budgets and correspondingly have massive expectations not only because of those costs but because of the track record the company has achieved over the past 2 decades. That means when they're unable to meet those expectations, those misses are magnified not only in terms of reputation, but also in terms of finances because of the massive investment. That's why it's become easy to criticize Disney for being "woke" because of their attempts to widen their audience amidst a political climate where extremists view diversity in casting and stories as alienating their core audience.

Disney's problem is not trying to tell stories about diverse cultures, lifestyles, and people, it's problem is spending hundreds of millions of dollars trying to convince society that they want to pay for those stories. There's definitely a decent portion of our world that wants to experience those stories, but in the end people want to watch stories they can relate to personally. By using diverse casts and telling stories from an increasingly minority viewpoints, it's becoming clear that the majority will not always pay good money for what in seen as "foreign" fare. It's admirable and essential that these stories get told, but the disconnect occurs when Disney tries to turn niche stories and themes into big budget projects with sky-high financial expectations.

It would be great if society as a whole would embrace these diverse ideas and stories, but I think it's going to be a long and slow process to get the majority to be willing to spend hard-earned money to be lectured to about how other cultures and ways of viewing the world are worth recognizing and respecting.

Ironically, I think this is why streaming services are the future of entertainment. As TH noted, a trip to the movies is an expensive and somewhat arduous process, and while the theater experience has done an excellent job of continuing to differentiate itself from the home viewing experience, big budget releases still have to appeal to a massive audience to be financially successful. Streaming allows for far more niche programming, and while big-budget programs lead the reasoning why viewers sign up and maintain their subscriptions, subscribers don't feel guilty of wasting time/money watching more diverse offerings on the service because they don't feel like they're directly paying for that programming like you do when you walk into a movie theater.

Look at Netflix, a company that tells more non-white non-American stories than any production company on planet Earth, and is arguably the most successful at doing it. Disney is merely trying to widen its net, but in doing so has to fight the image its audience has cast on the company. Ultimately, Disney has to battle its own "fans" while attempting to redefine what mass-marketed entertainment should look like.

@James - My mistake.

Page upon page of endless discussion is all quite valid I'm sure.
In the final analysis the only criterion that really matters is that if people like a movie enough to part with their hard-earned cash to go see it then it's a success.
I , personally, wouldn't cross the street to see something like "Barbie" but then I'm not the target demographic. However if more customers go and see that rather than, say, Oppenheimer then Barbie will be adjudged to be the better movie. It might be that at the box office but, in reality, it's probably just sugary nonsense. But very popular sugary nonsense.
Depends on whether you'd rather make commercially successful movies rather than quality ones that make less money.
Maybe that's why the likes of Disney make both good films and rotten tomatoes to balance the books whilst maintaining some integrity.

There’s no book balancing going on at Disney, Rob P, their movies are losing millions and soon to be billions of dollars, and that’s just for 2023. Who should Disney fire next?

@Russell: re: Disney films based on attractions- I believe there was a film based on the Country Bears as well

Can also count the Tower of Terror movie on ABC.

Question: Can we assume that the people who are angry with Walt Disney World for its parent company's support of all the so-called "woke" political stuff, are equally angry at Universal Orlando because its parent company Comcast has a registered Democrat as its CEO and is the owner of MSNBC -- a platform that rails against the "Don't Say Gay" bill as well as DeSantis and the policies/legislation he supports?

Disney and TH are on the run, more deflection is needed. Deflect! Deflect!
It’s called the Parental Rights in Education Bill, and no, Disney sucks. You gonna cry some more, TH?

Gays Against Groomers
https://www.gaysagainstgroomers.com/about

Gays Against Groomers is a nonprofit organization of gay people and others within the community who oppose the recent trend of indoctrinating, sexualizing and medicalizing children under the guise of “LGBTQIA+”
Our community that once preached love and acceptance of others has been hijacked by radical activists who are now pushing extreme concepts onto society, specifically targeting children in recent years.
​
The overwhelming majority of gay people are against what the community has transformed into, and we do not accept the political movement pushing their agenda in our name. Gays Against Groomers directly opposes the sexualization and indoctrination of children. This includes drag queen story hours, drag shows involving children, the transitioning and medicalization of minors, and gender theory being taught in the classroom.

The activists, backed by school boards, government, woke media, and corporations, have been speaking on our behalf for too long. When fighting for equality, our goal was to successfully integrate ourselves into society, but now these radicals aim to restructure it entirely in order to accommodate a fringe minority, as well as seek to indoctrinate children into their ideology. We’re saying NO.

There are millions of gays within the community that want nothing to do with this Alphabet religion and join the fight with parents and concerned people everywhere to protect children. We also aim to return sanity and reclaim the community we once called our own.

The gay community is not a monolith. Those pushing this agenda do not represent or speak for us all, nor do we want to be associated with them in any way. What we are witnessing is mass scale child abuse being perpetrated on an entire generation, and we will no longer sit by and watch it happen. It is going to take those of us from within the community to finally put an end to this insanity, and that's exactly what we're going to do.

Listed below are just some of the headlines from Comcast-owned MSNBC -- the same Comcast that owns Universal Orlando. Should we write Comcast CEO (and registered Democrat) Brian L. Roberts (who made $32.1 million in 2022) and demand that his news channel call the legislation by its proper name?

Again these are MSNBC headlines:

"Florida's 'Don't Say Gay' bill is child abuse, plain and simple."

"DeSantis signs 'Don't Say Gay' law built on anti-LGBTQ lies"

"Randy Rainbow on Florida's 'Don't Say Gay' bill: 'It's really just a horror'

"Joe Harding, 'Don't Say Gay' bill sponsor, resigns amid fraud charges"

"'Don't Say Gay' bill and Stop WOKE Act pass, pushing Florida closer ..."

"DeSantis' so-called Don't Say Gay bill part of an ugly pattern"

"Florida teacher speaks about passage of 'Don't Say Gay' bill"

"Ron DeSantis featured my book to justify his awful 'Don't Say Gay' bill"

"What 'Don't Say Gay' bill, other GOP-backed bills reveal about ..."

"DeSantis opts for curious place to sign so-called Don't Say Gay bill."

"'Don't Say Gay' senator kicked out of restaurant"

And those are just the headlines. References to the legislation as the "Don't Say Gay Bill" are frequently made by Comcast owned MSNBC commentators. I would say the attacks on the "Don't Say Gay Bill" made on MSNBC are louder and more frequent than those made by Disney's executive management.

For some, when it comes to Comcast and MSNBC / Universal's rampant and unending attacks on the legislation, I suppose the mantra is "don't say boycott".

Deflection! Deflection! Disney is not the only one that sucks, right TH?
Did Comcast come out against the Parental Rights in Education Bill like Disney did? We know about the corruption in the news media like MSNBC, CNN, ABC/NBC/CBS, NPR, BBC, ESPN and Fox. But did Comcast as a company cross the line like Disney? There are quite a few articles about Disney coming out against the bill, but I can’t find one about Comcast doing the same. Can you, TH?

As the CEO of Comcast Brian L. Roberts (who made $32.1 million in 2022) could direct the executives at MSNBC to stop calling the legislation the 'Don't Say Gay' bill. But since he is a registered Democrat, it is unlikely that he will.

Of course Comcast/NBC/Universal have also been home to shows like 'Will & Grace' and 'The West Wing' -- the latter of which portrayed a Democratic president in a positive light.

Certainly Comcast's all-too-obvious political leanings are worthy of the same criticism from those that have chosen to lambast Disney for its opposition to the "Don't Say Gay" legislation -- which is what Comcast MSNBC's commentators and writers have called it countless times while broadcasting 24-hours a day.

In fact, considering the fact that Comcast's MSNBC network maintains this 24-hour attack on parental rights and promoting a woke agenda, the massive corporation that owns and operates the Universal Orlando parks deserves far more criticism than the Walt Disney Company -- from those who support the "Don't say gay" (again, Comcast/MSNBC's description) legislation.

IMHO

@ Keith

While it’s most likely that no one will be convincing another person to change their mind in this area, I would like to understand.

Although I can’t, and wouldn’t, speak of behalf of others, from my own perspective…the “gray” area is the presentation of your stance. It’s clear you dislike Disney, but is it solely tied to their stance / actions in relation to Ron DeSantis & the Florida battle? Or is it more? I ask because some of the points you’ve presented can be attached to the industry as a whole…so your post on Disney whether mistakenly or intentionally, just come across a personal annoyance / anger at the company vs a more balanced examination or what you think the issue is.

Like the earlier reference to their Chief Diversity officer exiting…Is there an issue with that specific person or the fact that a role like that exist…because EVERY major studio has a Diversity, Inclusion Officer. In terms of finances, they’ve had some rocky output this year, but EVERY studio has. Paramount recently reported massive losses. Warner Bro. just reported larger than expected losses.

But there’s not a “Fast X bombed…who should Universal fire next, A “Flash is a major box office failure…who should WB fire next thread, A “Mission Impossible bombed, who should Paramount fire next topic.

If it’s tied to Disney’s content being “woke”… Many consider WB’s Barbie to be a text book definition of woke (although it is eschewing the “go woke, go broke” template to the extreme)It’s a huge hit. Sonys Across the Spiderverse can be accused of being woke.

This summer, Universal released the animated Dreamworks “Ruby Gilman Teenage Kracken”and that had characters from multiple diverse backgrounds. Ruby’s crush is a different race, while her best friend is a queer character. WB, Sony, and Universal released films this summer that can be considered more woke than anything Disney released so far this year. And all those films were marketed to families.

Everyone has a right to their opinion and I try, even when I don’t see the same point of view, to listen & understand. I guess that’s what I’m trying to do here. If it’s just a “I can’t stand Disney” opinion, it is what is is, and no one can say your wrong for how you feel. That’s a personal thing.

If it’s not a “I hate DIsney thing”, and there’s more…I think your message may get lost in the way it’s presented. I try to look at things from an objective and balanced perspective, and you’ve made some fair points…but honestly many of the points that are highlighted as being a huge negative for Disney can be applied to Universal, Warner, Sony, Paramount, etc.

My intention isn’t to be aggressive or insult, but to understand a different perspective …even if I don’t agree. What is it about Disney that causes this reaction, that the other studios don’t?

Got it, so it is tied to the issue in Florida. Context is a more clear, lol.

I was viewing it from a more "content" based angle, because their current content was being cited throughout the thread.

That's why in some of my previous responses, I would reference their older output as having similar traits / applying the same filter. ( i.e. 2023 Little Mermaid / 1997 Cinderella) or even other studio failures (How in the world was "The Flash" not being mentioned when talking about box office, lol)

Knowing the origin is specific corporate politics, provides more context!

Hey, why was my comment erased? Was it the “Disney toed the line” comment, the “abortion is murder” comment, or the “Democratic Party is the slave party” comment? Because they are all true, I stated the facts throughout this thread if you want proof.

Disney’s stock flirting with lowest close in nearly 9 years
Published: Aug. 24, 2023 at 10:53 a.m. ET
By Emily Bary

Shares of Walt Disney Co. DIS are flirting with what could become their lowest close since 2014. The stock was off 2.2%, trading at $83.95 in Thursday morning action, and thus on pace to finish lower than it did Dec. 28, 2022, when it ended the session at $84.17. Disney shares haven’t closed lower than $84 since Oct. 17, 2014, when they finished at $83.83. They’re on pace for their lowest close since then, according to Dow Jones Market Data. Disney’s stock is down 58% from its all-time closing high of $201.91 that was set March 8, 2021.

Who should Disney fire next?

Disney is on a ‘woke path to ruin.' Even ‘Snow White’ actress hates her own story
Opinion | Karol Markowicz | Fox News

How much is Disney willing to sacrifice to the cult of woke?

Earlier this month, Disney announced it is continuing to lose massive sums of money, $512 million in the most-recent quarter, on its streaming service Disney+. Disney stock is down 56% from their March 2021 high. And their one revenue producing asset, their amusement parks, saw a downturn in attendance this summer.

To combat this, Disney has not gone back to basics and focused on the family friendly entertainment that made it an amusement behemoth. No, it’s continued down its woke path to ruin, making sure to leave nothing in its wake.

Rachel Zegler, who will be starring in a live action remake of the classic "Snow White," slated to be released next year, has been on a promotional tour talking about how much she hates Snow White.

Zegler has criticized the relationship between Snow White and the prince in the original movie. "The original cartoon came out in 1937 and very evidently so. There’s a big focus on her love story with the guy who literally stalks her. Weird, weird."

Perhaps Zegler has never read a fairytale before. Generally the dashing prince doesn’t submit a five-page letter of consent to the princess in order to wake her from the evil spell she has been put under by a witch.

And 1937 is a bit more modern than Snow White’s actual origins. It was first published in "Grimms' Fairy Tales," by the Brothers Grimm, in 1812 and possibly based on folk tales from even earlier than that. Zegler finds all of that weird, weird.

Many of Disney’s problems stem from the company openly trying to indoctrinate children into leftist thinking. They prominently picked a fight with Florida Governor Ron DeSantis over his Parental Rights in Education bill that stopped inappropriate materials being taught to kids in K-3rd grade. Then a leak of their internal meeting showed Disney executives openly discussing how to hide propaganda in their films.

The Snow White brouhaha, however, goes beyond politics. Disney has long had a core audience who were willing to stick with Disney despite political disagreements. Zegler isn’t just pushing the usual woke nonsense that Disney has come to embrace, she’s also challenging Disney’s history and attacking a beloved classic movie.

Her criticisms, of course, can apply to many Disney movies. It isn’t just Snow White that is saved by true love’s kiss. "Cinderella," "Beauty and the Beast," "Sleeping Beauty" and others will have to be discarded if Zegler’s perspective is the prevailing one.

It doesn’t help that the rewrite also scraps the dwarves in favor of "magical creatures" of various physical descriptions. Disney fans might be OK with change but not when it accompanies the lead actress trashing the original film.

Disney fan site "Inside the Magic" noted that the changes have ruined the film’s charm. "Because Disney has shoehorned their first princess to fit a clunky 'girl-boss' narrative, they’ve stripped away all the bits and bobs that make the story magical. With no love story, no whimsical wonder, and no dwarves, is it even Snow White anymore?"

David Hand, the son of the original film's director, has said the remake is "insulting" to his father’s work.

Disney executives haven’t listened to conservatives and moderates who have told them that they are destroying a beloved company. They haven’t heard the pleas of parents to stop producing content meant to indoctrinate instead of entertain. "Snow White" will be a test whether they listen to their superfans or whether ideology will continue to trump profit for the company.

TLM grossed $50m less than Aladdin 2019. Ticket inflation since 2019 is a factor, but it's not exactly a Zimbabwean or Venezuelan difference. Avatar 2 made about $50m less than Avatar 1, and there's only a small difference between the two in real ticket sales. If most of the audience that showed up for the last pre-pandemic Disney remake showed up for the first post-pandemic Disney remake, the majority of the failure is from the huge budget instead of audience interest.

$50 million less or $500 million less? Get your facts straight.

@dc89 - I think you missed a zero in your math. Aladdin (2019) made $1.054 billion worldwide, TLM has made $567 million. Aladdin = smash hit, TLM = not so much of a smash. I think the next big test will be the Snow White and the 7 magical hipsters in March 2024. There are a lot of red flags about this release: 1) actress dissing the source material and almost actively trying to piss off Disney fans 2) the controversy surrounding the casting 3) Disney PR disavowing a leaked photo stating that it was a fake, only to have to admit a few hours later that it was a real photo of the cast in the movie. You know it is bad when the PR people see a photo and laugh it off as a fake, and then have to do a mea culpa a few hours later. You know that they were calling the studio saying things like: "are you sure this is Snow White?" and "You're expecting us to market this thing?"

You don't think Disney are being deliberately contentious ?

After all they do say that there's no such thing as bad publicity.

Spend money on projects that are designed to offend and then become the good guys by cancelling them to appease people. Then everyone thinks they're great again and they recoup more money than they spent on those doomed projects.

@ Rob P - That's an easy answer...no. And that isn't even a soft no, but a very hard no. Ask Bud Light if there is no such thing as bad publicity. Ask Target if they think all publicity is good. While Wal Mart was having an amazing quarter, Target's sales were down 5.4%. To quote CBS News: "Target's quarterly sales declined for the first time in six years, with one company executive blaming the drop on the "strong reaction" to its Pride merchandise. Target faced a backlash against its LGBTQ+ merchandise earlier this year, with some conservative shoppers vowing to boycott the store." SO...NO, not all publicity is good, especially for brands that appear to be specifically courting controversy.

Disney ‘Repeatedly Misled Investors’ About Streaming Losses, Lawsuit Alleges
Derek Saul | Forbes
Aug 29, 2023,05:00pm EDT

Disney leadership faces a fresh lawsuit from shareholders accusing management of knowingly deceiving investors about the financial health of its core Disney+ streaming service, as frustrations hit a fever pitch with the stock wobbling near a nine-year low.

KEY FACTS
Beginning in December 2020, Disney’s top executives “repeatedly misled investors” about the extent of Disney+’s losses, according to the complaint filed Wednesday by New Jersey-based Stourbridge Investments, first reported on by the Hollywood Reporter.

The suit names Diseny’s former and current CEOs Robert Chapek and Bob Iger, its former CFO Christine McCarthy and several other current and former executives as defendants.

The firm’s “wrongful acts and omissions” led to the “precipitous decline in the market value” of Disney shares, the lawsuit alleges.

The company’s brass “materially misrepresented” Disney+’s financial future when it predicted three years ago it expected the service to turn a profit and have 230 to 260 million subscribers by 2024, the suit argues; Disney+ had 146 million subscribers as of the end of June, when Disney reported a $512 million loss in its total streaming unit.

The lawsuit also alleged Disney hid “the true costs of the platform” by shifting shows’ marketing and production costs from Disney+ to the company’s legacy TV networks, in some cases by debuting shows on linear TV channels even if they were meant to be streaming originals.

Disney did not immediately respond to Forbes’ request for comment, but the company told the Hollywood Reporter it planned to “defend [itself] vigorously” against a similar shareholder suit brought forward in May.

SURPRISING FACT
Disney stock’s 45% decline since December 2020 makes it the 15th-worst performing stock currently on the S&P 500, per FactSet data, by far trailing the index’s 5% loss over the period.

BIG NUMBER
$3.7 billion. That’s how much of a loss Disney reported in the 12-month period ending June 30 in its direct-to-consumer media segment encompassing its Disney+, ESPN+ and Hulu streaming services.

KEY BACKGROUND
The Disney+ suit is the latest headache Disney leadership faces, having staved off a proxy fight from billionaire activist investor Nelson Peltz earlier this year. Among Peltz’s misgivings was an assertion that Disney’s “flawed” streaming strategy and “lack of overall cost discipline” resulted in a subpar return on investment for shareholders. Disney, which now trades at its lowest level since 2014, has posted a 54.5% return over the last 10 years when accounting for dividend payments, compared to a median return of 187% for the 468 current S&P companies who were publicly traded for the entirety of the decade, according to FactSet data.

Who should Disney fire next?