75 employees laid off at Pixar, including the director of Lightyear

[PolymerSkywalker]

"Traditional families" Don't you love it when bppl tell you exactly who they are? They try to be sneaky, like getting concerned about Disney's bottom line and then poof! The real reason comes up!

Yes, I do love it when people or "bppl" tell you exactly who they are. Like when you are offended by me wanting Disney to return to being apolitical. I have nothing against the LGTB+ community, I have dear friends that are alternative lifestyle. We go out to dinner, have parties at each other's homes. We all ride mountain bikes together. You don't know me, so stop trying to put me in your little bucket where you think I fit. My God Daughter is alternative lifestyle who lived with us for several years during Covid, and I love her like she is my own. She is a D1 college golfer now and I could not be more proud of her accomplishments, she is supposed to stop by this week for us to prepare her favorite meal.

The issue is you see me not wanting sociopolitical narratives added into Disney movies as violence toward your way of thinking, and this could not be farther from the truth. I see it as smart business sense. I think companies remaining apolitical is the best path to shareholder profits. I think Bud Light running an add with Mulvaney was pretty stupid if you want to sell beer to the blue-collar center-right crowd that bought it before. Maybe there is benefit down the road for Anheuser Bush that I don't see, but right now they have lost a whopping 25% of their most popular beer's sales volume. Their investors are pretty ticked off right now, and rightly so.

I don't dislike anyone, and whatever you want to do is your own business.

 

[BrianL]

Yes, I do love it when people or "bppl" tell you exactly who they are. Like when you are offended by me wanting Disney to return to being apolitical. I have nothing against the LGTB+ community, I have dear friends that are alternative lifestyle. We go out to dinner, have parties at each other's homes. We all ride mountain bikes together.

But why is it that if there is a straight couple in a movie that is not political, but a same sex couple is? This stuff isn't even usually a major part of the plot, it's simply reflecting that people like that exist.

 

[mdmost]

I more need him to address what was the problem with Strange World? That the family was mixed race? That's somehow political? That's reality in America now. That the son in the film was gay and liked a boy? I simply don't understand why being more inclusive so more people can see themselves in characters is a bad thing or a "political" thing now. You don't think your god daughter should ever see herself represented on screen? You don't think she would want to see someone she could identify with on screen. I think the reaction to what Disney is doing is more a reflection of how fragile our society has become to the changing world. I don't understand how anyone can see the reaction of little African American girls to Halle Bailey's Ariel and think that's a bad thing or something that's political. She's an incredible actress and singer. She's Disney's next big star.

How is Elemental political when it's supposedly the same message as Zootopia, which people didn't seem to think was political even though it 100% was about race relations and prejudice? Again, maybe the problem is the audience brings their own politics into play here now a days when Disney has a pretty good track record of inclusion which people didn't seem to have a problem with before (Aladdin, Mulan, Pocahontas, Moana, The Princess and the Frog, Big Hero 6).

 

[bryaalre]

Quality is not an issue as Soul, Luca and Turning Red are all over 90% from critics on Rotten Tomatoes and the lowest is Lightyear at 74%. Audience scores are high as well besides Turning Red (obvious review bomb).

Pixar is in a tough spot, but that hardly has to do their inclusion of specific characters that show up for 5 seconds in an entire movie. There are certainly bigger issues Pixar is facing at the moment.

1. Original animation has hit a road block. There hasn't been an animated original box office hit since Coco. The Bad guys and Encanto are the only ones to surpass $250M and they didn't do it by much with Encanto at $256M and Bad Guys at $250M. Pixar's 5 of their last 6 releases have been originals and will be 6 of their last 7 once Elio releases next year.

There are a few more original animations coming out this year in Ruby Gillman, Wish and Migration. So, we will see if this narrative holds or not but at the moment, families are not showing up to originals. This is why we have Toy Story 5 and Inside Out 2 in production. I also wouldn't be surprised with an Incredibles 3. People will complain about sequels and studios lacking creativity but when studios release originals, they don't show up.

2. Disney Plus, in my opinion, shares some of the blame as they sent to many movies straight there or within 30 days, a la Encanto and Strange World.

For better or worse, everyone know Pixar is Disney and they will hit Disney Plus soon. Disney need to keep things theatrical for a minimum or 3 or 4 months, even if they bomb at the theatres. A lot of studios are having this problem and everyone of them need to keep things off of streaming for months. PVOD is fine how it is with most releasing digital rentals/purchases after 30-45 days.

3. Budgets, but I have not idea how they keep these in check.

Pixar has not has a film under $150M budget since Cars released in 2006. They may lower budgets, but I have a hard time seeing it go below $150M as that is not their style. Could they change course and lower quality and realism like animation studios in order to get budgets closer to $100M. Yeah, but that's not Pixar.

 

[Starport Seven-Five]

I think companies remaining apolitical is the best path to shareholder profits. I think Bud Light running an add with Mulvaney was pretty stupid if you want to sell beer to the blue-collar center-right crowd that bought it before. Maybe there is benefit down the road for Anheuser Bush that I don't see, but right now they have lost a whopping 25% of their most popular beer's sales volume. Their investors are pretty ticked off right now, and rightly so.

This is such a weird example because the “ad” was a social media post by Mulvaney. Literally the only people that saw it were people that followed them. If you find that partnership offensive… you had to go out of your way to find the post. People really need hobbies beyond finding things to get upset about.

I also don’t see how that was a political statement but the above posts did a good job of responding to that.

 

[Smugpugmug]

How is Elemental political when it's supposedly the same message as Zootopia, which people didn't seem to think was political even though it 100% was about race relations and prejudice?

I'm convinced that if Zootopia came out today, people would be calling that "woke" or whatever.

 

[BrianL]

Quality is not an issue as Soul, Luca and Turning Red are all over 90% from critics on Rotten Tomatoes and the lowest is Lightyear at 74%. Audience scores are high as well besides Turning Red (obvious review bomb).

Pixar is in a tough spot, but that hardly has to do their inclusion of specific characters that show up for 5 seconds in an entire movie. There are certainly bigger issues Pixar is facing at the moment.

1. Original animation has hit a road block. There hasn't been an animated original box office hit since Coco. The Bad guys and Encanto are the only ones to surpass $250M and they didn't do it by much with Encanto at $256M and Bad Guys at $250M. Pixar's 5 of their last 6 releases have been originals and will be 6 of their last 7 once Elio releases next year.

There are a few more original animations coming out this year in Ruby Gillman, Wish and Migration. So, we will see if this narrative holds or not but at the moment, families are not showing up to originals. This is why we have Toy Story 5 and Inside Out 2 in production. I also wouldn't be surprised with an Incredibles 3. People will complain about sequels and studios lacking creativity but when studios release originals, they don't show up.

2. Disney Plus, in my opinion, shares some of the blame as they sent to many movies straight there or within 30 days, a la Encanto and Strange World.

For better or worse, everyone know Pixar is Disney and they will hit Disney Plus soon. Disney need to keep things theatrical for a minimum or 3 or 4 months, even if they bomb at the theatres. A lot of studios are having this problem and everyone of them need to keep things off of streaming for months. PVOD is fine how it is with most releasing digital rentals/purchases after 30-45 days.

3. Budgets, but I have not idea how they keep these in check.

Pixar has not has a film under $150M budget since Cars released in 2006. They may lower budgets, but I have a hard time seeing it go below $150M as that is not their style. Could they change course and lower quality and realism like animation studios in order to get budgets closer to $100M. Yeah, but that's not Pixar.

You pretty much nailed it!

 

[mdmost]

This is such a weird example because the “ad” was a social media post by Mulvaney. Literally the only people that saw it were people that followed them. If you find that partnership offensive… you had to go out of your way to find the post. People need hobbies beyond finding things to get upset about.

I also don’t see how that was a political statement but the above posts did a good job of responding to that.

There's definitely an outrage machine that's mostly social media based that's singular mission seems to be finding things like this and making them into bigger issues than they need to be in a quest to eradicate anything they see as "woke".

 

[nancipants]

I'm convinced that if Zootopia came out today, people would be calling that "woke" or whatever.

I hadn't seen Zootopia until last Christmas (my son started watching it at my in-laws house) and I told my husband it would be review bombed like crazy if it released in 2023.

 

[Smugpugmug]

I hadn't seen Zootopia until last Christmas (my son started watching it at my in-laws house) and I told my husband it would be review bombed like crazy if it released in 2023.

Oh yeah totally.

I was surprised that Across the Spiderverse wasn't targeted by that crowd. That movie was way more "woke" than anything Disney has put out recently.

 

[Disney Bobby]

There's definitely an outrage machine that's mostly social media based that's singular mission seems to be finding things like this and making them into bigger issues than they need to be in a quest to eradicate anything they see as "woke".

Been that way on the opposite side for a LONG time. I mean, if you can find a message of hate in Zip-A-Dee-Doo-Dah, you got no room to criticize others as overly sensitive. What you are seeing now is just the push back.

 

[jade1]

Luca is soo good!

One of our faves.

Worst part is they never had any Luca items in the parks to buy. Or very limited unless we missed it-and we went a lot the covid years.

 

[mdmost]

Been that way on the opposite side for a LONG time. I mean, if you can find a message of hate in Zip-A-Dee-Doo-Dah, you got no room to criticize others as overly sensitive. What you are seeing now is just the push back.

The ground swell to change Splash Mountain came mostly from inside Disney after George Floyd and for all we know it had been in the cards for a long time given the movie it was based on was banned from distribution since the 1980s. I didn't see calls for boycotting Disney because of Splash Mountain.

 

[PolymerSkywalker]

This is such a weird example because the “ad” was a social media post by Mulvaney. Literally the only people that saw it were people that followed them. If you find that partnership offensive… you had to go out of your way to find the post. People really need hobbies beyond finding things to get upset about.

I also don’t see how that was a political statement but the above posts did a good job of responding to that.

It was a paid social media ad campaign with a transgender individual by the most blue collar beer company in all of America. The bread and butter customer base for bud light was dive bars, bowling alleys, darts leagues, baseball games, football games, rodeos, country music shows, and millions of joe 6 packs buying cheap beer on the weekends.

Their partnership with Mulvaney sparked an outrage that has cost them $20 Billion dollars of their stock valuation and around 25% of the bud light market share. At least two marketing executives have been placed on '"involuntary leave". Their stock has been downgraded by several key people in the financial industry.

On top of that the alternative LGBT+ community is now really mad at Bud Light also. They have lowered their perfect score as being an inclusive place to work and several gay bars have stopped serving bud light also. They are seen as not being inclusive enough now because they didn't aggressively enough support Mulvaney when the backlash started. This may hurt In Bevs ESG score and make it more difficult for them to acquire cheap business loans.

Everyone on both sides of the culture war is mad at Bud Light, and their brand & company have been severely damaged by this massive event in the industry. Their direct competitors for cheap light beer are seeing massive sales increases Coors Lite is +23% and Miller Lite +19%.

This is an incredible example of how engaging in intersectional dynamics is a huge mistake for companies. Bud light would still be the #1 beer in America if they had not partnered with Mulvaney. Once again I have no problem with Mulvaney, but I can clearly see this was really stupid move for Bud Light to make if they want to maximize profits in America.

 

[BrianL]

It was a paid social media ad campaign with a transgender individual by the most blue collar beer company in all of America. The bread and butter customer base for bud light was dive bars, bowling alleys, darts leagues, baseball games, football games, rodeos, country music shows, and millions of joe 6 packs buying cheap beer on the weekends.

Their partnership with Mulvaney sparked an outrage that has cost them $20 Billion dollars of their stock valuation and around 25% of the bud light market share. At least two marketing executives have been placed on '"involuntary leave". Their stock has been downgraded by several key people in the financial industry.

On top of that the alternative lifestyle community is now really mad at Bud Light also. They have lowered their perfect score as being an inclusive place to work and several alternative lifestyle bars have stopped serving bud light also. They are seen as not being inclusive enough now because they didn't aggressively enough support Mulvaney when the backlash started. This may hurt In Bevs ESG score and make it more difficult for them to acquire cheap business loans.

Everyone on both sides of the culture war is mad at Bud Light, and their brand & company have been severely damaged by this massive event in the industry. Their direct competitors for cheap light beer are seeing massive sales increases Coors Lite is +23% and Miller Lite +19%.

This is an incredible example of how engaging in intersectional dynamics is a huge mistake for companies. Bud light would still be the #1 beer in America if they had not partnered with Mulvaney. Once again I have no problem with Mulvaney, but I can clearly see this was really stupid move for Bud Light to make if they want to maximize profits in America.

The thing is, you seem to make it out to be the company's fault. It's NOT THEIR FAULT that so many people hate others so much that they won't even buy a product that those same people also like. Who could even imagine such a terrifying concept?

 

[Disney Bobby]

I more need him to address what was the problem with Strange World? That the family was mixed race? That's somehow political? That's reality in America now. That the son in the film was gay and liked a boy? I simply don't understand why being more inclusive so more people can see themselves in characters is a bad thing or a "political" thing now. You don't think your god daughter should ever see herself represented on screen? You don't think she would want to see someone she could identify with on screen. I think the reaction to what Disney is doing is more a reflection of how fragile our society has become to the changing world. I don't understand how anyone can see the reaction of little African American girls to Halle Bailey's Ariel and think that's a bad thing or something that's political. She's an incredible actress and singer. She's Disney's next big star.

How is Elemental political when it's supposedly the same message as Zootopia, which people didn't seem to think was political even though it 100% was about race relations and prejudice? Again, maybe the problem is the audience brings their own politics into play here now a days when Disney has a pretty good track record of inclusion which people didn't seem to have a problem with before (Aladdin, Mulan, Pocahontas, Moana, The Princess and the Frog, Big Hero 6).

Of course you and everybody else gets it with Ariel. You just don't want to admit it because you don't agree with it. I'll say it, since nobody wants to, and you can virtue signal your horror and disagreement, and we can move on.

In the original, Ariel was a pasty white girl with flowing red hair. People connected with her, and part of that is the image. How she looks. Nostalgia. So while her race is a part of that, expecting her to look like that in the new movie isn't inherently racist. Even non-whites overseas expected to see someone that looked like the character they fell in love with 30 years ago. If the original Ariel had been dark skinned and they made the new girl look like the original Ariel, the response would have been the same.

And if you still don't get, imagine a live action Princess and the Frog with a white girl playing Tiana. The world would be on fire. And it would fail miserably, as it should. A big part of nostalgia is authenticity and being true to the original. Image is a big part of that. You can disagree, but that's just reality.

 

[PolymerSkywalker]

The thing is, you seem to make it out to be the company's fault. It's NOT THEIR FAULT that so many people hate others so much that they won't even buy a product that those same people also like. Who could even imagine such a terrifying concept?

Correct, but it is 100% is their fault that they did not know who their customers were that had made them successful. Disney has been made a massive cultural juggernaut on epic proportions on primarily Middle America's families. Middle America is primarily made up of moderates pretty much in the center of the political spectrum.

Engaging in the culture war on either side is a lose-lose proposition for Disney, period. Disney would be equally stupid to put a bunch of right wing crap in their movies also. If Disney made a movie about a devout family with tons of biblical imagery in it, that would enrage the left correct?

 

[BrianL]

Correct, but it is 100% is their fault that they did not know who their customers were that had made them successful. Disney has been made a massive cultural juggernaut on epic proportions on primarily Middle America's families. Middle America is primarily made up of moderates pretty much in the center of the political spectrum.

Engaging in the culture war on either side is a lose-lose proposition for Disney, period. Disney would be equally stupid to put a bunch of right wing crap in their movies also. If Disney made a movie about a devout family with tons of biblical imagery in it, that would enrage the left correct?

I honestly doubt the left would care unless said movie had a message that was actively against certian groups of people. That's what I don't get. It's not like these brands are trying to EXCLUDE anybody - they are just trying to INCLUDE everybody. Why should that bother anybody?

 

[PolymerSkywalker]

Of course you and everybody else gets it with Ariel. You just don't want to admit it because you don't agree with it. I'll say it, since nobody wants to, and you can virtue signal your horror and disagreement, and we can move on.

In the original, Ariel was a pasty white girl with flowing red hair. People connected with her, and part of that is the image. How she looks. Nostalgia. So while her race is a part of that, expecting her to look like that in the new movie isn't inherently racist. Even non-whites overseas expected to see someone that looked like the character they fell in love with 30 years ago. If the original Ariel had been dark skinned and they made the new girl look like the original Ariel, the response would have been the same.

And if you still don't get, imagine a live action Princess and the Frog with a white girl playing Tiana. The world would be on fire. And it would fail miserably, as it should. A big part of nostalgia is authenticity and being true to the original. Image is a big part of that. You can disagree, but that's just reality.

Here is the other funny thing about TLM. America is terrible and so incredibly racist, that is the current narrative correct? Well TLM did just fine in America, but did horrendously overseas. Sure seems like American's accepted the race swapping of the character better than all the other countries. That don't fit the narrative though does it?

 

[mdmost]

Here is the other funny thing about TLM. America is terrible and so incredibly racist, that is the current narrative correct? Well TLM did just fine in America, but did horrendously overseas. Sure seems like American's accepted the race swapping of the character better than all the other countries. That don't fit the narrative though does it?

Again, you're the one who threw out TLM as a bad or misguided thing that Disney was doing, not the rest of us.

it’s fine, continue to make the likes of Strange World, Lightyear, live action TLM, and Elemental and losing hundreds of millions of dollars then. That will really show those pesky traditional families. Your plan seems flawless.