Disney to "Quiet the Noise" in Culture Wars

[tx911]

How about the Senate? Don't tell me they're just putting together the best group they can.

They aren't putting anything together. They are elected.

If there is a lack of diversity in people who are running for senate, I would argue it has nothing to do with the color of their skin.

Good grief, we just recently elected a member of the minority to the presidency, never mind the senate.

I just don't see the widespread racism that some of you espouse.

 

[DCLMP]

How about the Senate? Don't tell me they're just putting together the best group they can.

Don't people vote on that?

 

[DCLMP]

The US prison system.

Why is that?

 

[ttintagel]

Don't people vote on that?

Are you suggesting that race never has an impact on how people vote?

 

[DisneyOma]

While you do have a point, the problem is that in many, many cases, unless it is forced it simply won't happen. Humans tend to stay within their own circles and that will often mean people similar to us. We have to push and step out of our comfort zone and allow exposure to different kinds of people - but not everybody will do that. This isn't necessarily nefarious (sometimes it is though), but at any rate we will never get there without effort. Certainly some attmpts to do so work better than others and all that - I'm not purporting to know how to fix the world here. I do recognize what it is like though.

I disagree. I think most people welcome diversity. The world would be dreary without it.

I do not think a lack of diversity in a particular setting necessarily implies racism or any other -ism either.

If a lack of diversity exists in a particular area, there are probably other reasons for it that have nothing to do with race per se.

To both of the posters above - that's systemic racism.

 

[tx911]

To both of the posters above - that's systemic racism.

You'll have to point that out to me...

 

[tx911]

Are you suggesting that race never has an impact on how people vote?

Never? Of course not.

There are some idiots out there who would probably make a decision like that based on skin color alone.

All I'm saying is that I think those people are a very, very, very tiny group. Not the army of bigots some believe are out there.

Refer to the election of a minority president.

 

[BrianL]

Don't people vote on that?

Uh, yeah. I'm saying that they don't necessarily vote for the best people because of other concerns. In many cases, the system pretty much excludes others from even having a chance. Any guesses as to WHY that is? I can think of at least one....

 

[HokieRaven5]

So if Disney is doing so great why is the stock down 50%?

The last year it’s down 19%, the last 5 it’s down 29%. None of that has to do with the content they are putting out.

 

[Douglas Dubh]

None of that has to do with the content they are putting out.

That’s an unverifiable claim. There’s a good chance at least some of it is due to lack of confidence in Disney’s content production.

 

[HokieRaven5]

That’s an unverifiable claim. There’s a good chance at least some of it is due to lack of confidence in Disney’s content production.

When the institutional investors who actually move the stock start asking more questions about the content they produce then sure.

 

[BrianL]

The last year it’s down 19%, the last 5 it’s down 29%. None of that has to do with the content they are putting out.

Well, some of it is impacted by the content that they are putting out, but it's not because that content contains diversity etc., it's just becuase it's a bit milquetoast and people will wait for that especially if the streaming window is short.

 

[HokieRaven5]

Well, some of it is impacted byt hte content that they are putting out, but it's not because that content contains diversity etc., it's just becuase it's a bit milquetoast and people will wait for that especially if the streaming window is short.

The Studio box office #s of late hasn’t really been a reported or questioned catalyst for the decline in the stock.

Wall Street surged the stock over exuberance over how many subscribers D+ had early on and forgot about the growing pains of launching a streaming service and course corrected when they focused on profits in streaming instead.

Add in they also aren’t favorable to the legacy media companies right now because of how unsure anyone is about the death of cable. Paramount is down 37% the last year, and 76% the last 5.

Wall Street historically has never really liked $Dis as it was never a great growth stock, but it had a dividend which was a nice way to line the pockets.

$Dis just has more doubts at the moment because streaming isn’t currently profitable and cable tv is dying so the investors pulled back and are just staying away till the dust starts to settle.

 

[mom2rtk]

I'm not following posters here are saying Disney is getting back to its roots? What roots? At its roots Disney is a private company whose primary purpose is to maximize shareholder value.

Based on recent stock performance, they haven't been doing a good job of it lately.

 

[BrianL]

The Studio box office #s of late hasn’t really been a reported or questioned catalyst for the decline in the stock.

Wall Street surged the stock over exuberance over how many subscribers D+ had early on and forgot about the growing pains of launching a streaming service and course corrected when they focused on profits in streaming instead.

Add in they also aren’t favorable to the legacy media companies right now because of how unsure anyone is about the death of cable. Paramount is down 37% the last year, and 76% the last 5.

Wall Street historically has never really liked $Dis as it was never a great growth stock, but it had a dividend which was a nice way to line the pockets.

$Dis just has more doubts at the moment because streaming isn’t currently profitable and cable tv is dying so the investors pulled back and are just staying away till the dust starts to settle.

True, but a couple of huge box-office hits wouldn't hurt anything either.

 

[HokieRaven5]

True, but a couple of huge box-office hits wouldn't hurt anything either.

Like a $2B Avatar sequel? Or a near $900M Black Panther and Guardians sequel?

 

[VandVsmama]

Regardless of which side of the aisle everyone stands, I do believe this is good news. Disney is at it's best when the focus is on pure entertainment.

I'm not commenting on "woke", conservative views, etc. I'm just hopeful that Disney can, and will, return to it's roots.

https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/disney-ceo-says-company-will-quiet-noise-culture-wars-analyst-2023-09-20/#:~:text=Sept 20 (Reuters) - Walt,an analyst note on Wednesday.

I agree.

In my opinion, some of Disney’s “roots” include creativity and really good storytelling. In some of the movies they’ve put out the past couple of years, the storytelling has not been very good. Look at the Pixar disaster of the Buzz Lightyear movie. I saw that one IN the movie theater. It dragged on and on forever. Lacked all of the stuff that’s made Pixar movies great in the past. The live action remakes? Bleh. Come up with new stories.

Occasionally, they’ve put out some pretty awesome stuff. Like Encanto. Or all of the Star Wars TV series that Dave Filoni and Jon Favreau have been putting out.

Disney needs to stay out of politics. And so do we.

 

[wabbott]

The Studio box office #s of late hasn’t really been a reported or questioned catalyst for the decline in the stock.

Wall Street surged the stock over exuberance over how many subscribers D+ had early on and forgot about the growing pains of launching a streaming service and course corrected when they focused on profits in streaming instead.

Add in they also aren’t favorable to the legacy media companies right now because of how unsure anyone is about the death of cable. Paramount is down 37% the last year, and 76% the last 5.

Wall Street historically has never really liked $Dis as it was never a great growth stock, but it had a dividend which was a nice way to line the pockets.

$Dis just has more doubts at the moment because streaming isn’t currently profitable and cable tv is dying so the investors pulled back and are just staying away till the dust starts to settle.

Actually, DIS has had two fairly recent periods of significant price appreciation. From the mid 80s to the late 90s, the stock went from about $2 to $30 (split adjusted). That was the Eisner era Then in the mid to late 00s to the mid 10's, it went from about $30 to $100, after Iger took over. There was a period of rocky performance toward the end of the Eisner reign, coinciding with a hostile bid from Comcast.

https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/DIS/disney/stock-price-history
https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna4239739
In a surprise move, cable TV giant Comcast Corp. proposed early Wednesday to buy Walt Disney Co., the iconic media and entertainment powerhouse that owns the ABC and ESPN television networks, movie studios and theme parks, for stock valued at about $54 billion.

 

[BrianL]

Like a $2B Avatar sequel? Or a near $900M Black Panther and Guardians sequel?

Ancient history, man. You know how shareholders are - they are only interested in the immediate, short-term game.

 

[HokieRaven5]

Ancient history, man. You know how shareholders are - they are only interested in the immediate, short-term game.

Still released during this 50% stock drop that’s been mentioned in this thread