In Defense of Bob Chapek

[Jonfw2]

I think Pickles was referring to the one poster that was claiming that Disney is not "family friendly anymore". I scratched my head at that statement too because Disney is still producing movies for all ages to enjoy.

Well, that's a ridiculous statement for sure. But the "gay people exist" line sounded to me like a specific reference to the Florida law. Sorry if I misinterpreted.

 

[AvidDisReader]

As a corporation Disney goal is to make money for its investors while entertaining its customers. I googled and found that approx 3% of the total population is LGBTQ. So if Disney wants to include same sex kisses and other scenes in their movies that give a nod to same sex relationship, that is their decision. The thing is that the other 97% of the population may not care for these scenes. In fact, a good number of the population openly reject these scenes for their children's consumption. The question is not in being homophobic, but at what age and how parents want to introduce their children to the LGBTQ community. From the backlash, it appears that there are many families do not want Disney to be playing that role. Disney risks alienating a huge percent of the nations families. So to all on this thread, what would you do to meet the goals as stated on the first sentence of this post.

 

[Jonfw2]

As a corporation Disney goal is to make money for its investors while entertaining its customers. I googled and found that approx 3% of the total population is LGBTQ. So if Disney wants to include same sex kisses and other scenes in their movies that give a nod to same sex relationship, that is their decision. The thing is that the other 97% of the population may not care for these scenes. In fact, a good number of the population openly reject these scenes for their children's consumption. The question is not in being homophobic, but at what age and how parents want to introduce their children to the LGBTQ community. From the backlash, it appears the there are many families do not want Disney to be playing that role. Disney risks alienating a huge percent of the nations families. So to all on this thread, what would you do to meet the goals as stated on the first sentence of this post.

There's an expression that I think really applies here, which is "controlling the narrative". One side (perhaps it's not 97%, but likely the majority) doesn't want their young children exposed to topics of sexuality in any regard. That somehow becomes in the narrative "they want to keep their kids away from gay people".

I sincerely don't understand what the motivation is with that.

 

[Smugpugmug]

As a corporation Disney goal is to make money for its investors while entertaining its customers. I googled and found that approx 3% of the total population is LGBTQ. So if Disney wants to include same sex kisses and other scenes in their movies that give a nod to same sex relationship, that is their decision. The thing is that the other 97% of the population may not care for these scenes. In fact, a good number of the population openly reject these scenes for their children's consumption. The question is not in being homophobic, but at what age and how parents want to introduce their children to the LGBTQ community. From the backlash, it appears the there are many families do not want Disney to be playing that role. Disney risks alienating a huge percent of the nations families. So to all on this thread, what would you do to meet the goals as stated on the first sentence of this post.

Statements like this really bother me because it implies that being LGBT is inherently sexual. There is nothing wrong with children knowing that same sex couples exist, especially in media. I mean, I am a lesbian and I had to endure heterosexual media for my entire childhood LOL Disney itself has entire movies based on heterosexual couples kissing and being in love.

Also the scenes themselves are so small and miniscule that they are essentially pointless in the grand scheme of things. Like the Lightyear kiss was 1.5 seconds long. How does that alienate audiences? Lefou being gay in the Beauty and the Beast remake was not explicitly stated and could easily be missed if you didn't know the context beforehand.

 

[Jonfw2]

Statements like this really bother me because it implies that being LGBT is inherently sexual. There is nothing wrong with children knowing that same sex couples exist, especially in media. I mean, I am a lesbian and I had to endure heterosexual media for my entire childhood LOL Disney itself has entire movies based on heterosexual couples kissing and being in love.

Also the scenes themselves are so small and miniscule that they are essentially pointless in the grand scheme of things. Like the Lightyear kiss was 1.5 seconds long. How does that alienate audiences? Lefou being gay in the Beauty and the Beast remake was not explicitly stated and could easily be missed if you didn't know the context beforehand.

You are absolutely right- there's a massive difference between "gay" and "sexual".

 

[GAN]

What the videos from Renegade online say is that movies and Disney+ shows that have focused too much on having an agenda have done poorly and this is a business decision to appeal to the majority of Disney moviegoers and Disney+ subscribers.

The claim is that after Pixar came out and said that Disney was censoring their movies ( https://variety.com/2022/film/news/...tion-censorship-dont-say-gay-bill-1235200582/ ) that Chapek allowed them to make Lightyear without being censored. Lightyear has not done well in the box office - and channels like Renegade are saying that is because of the lack of censorship or how the movie has been political or inclusive or whatever you want to call it. They have examples of other movies and shows that did not do well that were similar.

So it seems like not enough people watched Lightyear as you suggested - and as a business decision, Chapek has a goal of Disney not being political (again this is the word Renegade Online has been using) and trying to focus on making "family" movies - family being what movies make them the most money.

Now the definition of family movies, again per Renegade Online is one where parents can have their children watch it without having to worry about any of the content, nothing controversial in it (which I know can mean a lot of things - but lets say anything that a significant number of Disney+ subscribers would find controversial or moviegoers).

In the same way that Disney+ filters out older movies from children and puts warnings before certain movies because they can be culturally insensitive in today's world, Renegade Online is saying most parents want Disney+ to not have any controversial movies available to children (again controversial to a significant number of Disney+ subscribers or moviegoers).

You can say that parents should control what their kids watch, but as a parent - do I need to watch every movie by myself first before I allow my kids to watch it? At that point, I'm cancelling Disney+ because I don't have time to do that. If enough parents feel the same way - from a business perspective, that doesn't make sense for Disney.

That is at least what the videos are claiming. There was also recently an article that I unfortunately can't find right now that said Chapek may be creating a set of rules to help control this and keep Disney films away from being political. "Moderation" I believe was the term - can't find it right now. Maybe someone else has the link to it?

Ms. Marvel btw is actually touted by the videos above as being a "wholesome family show".

I don't really know personally if this is what is going on - but this is what the videos have said.

BTW- Despite all of this, I still think Chapek sucks as a CEO. I do hope though that in the next 3 year he'll change my mind or prove me wrong - but what I've seen so far from him, specifically on the changes made to the parks - I don't like.

Thanks for sharing. I have no idea about Renegade(I'm old I guess), but for every movie/show that failed because it had some hidden "agenda" I can probably show you two that failed without any ...so there goes that theory! I haven't seen Ms. Marvel, but I hear it isn't doing well -but maybe it is? As far as filtering goes, I understand your perspective(I have two grown daughters) -but I don't know, we can't "protect" our children forever. I'd be much more concerned with violent content over an uncomfortable love scene ...yet some people complaining turn around and buy their kid Call of Duty for entertainment ..LOL. I'm convinced, for better or worse, our children have a 99% chance of turning out just like us regardless of the influences of society. As Jimmy Buffett poetically stated ..."We're the people our parents warned us about."

I don't particularly care for Chapek either, but I'll give the guy a chance -it hasn't been the easiest times to navigate through. His problem is he has no social skills and it's blatantly obvious ..you need to be able to read people and adapt. Numbers only get you so far.

 

[AvidDisReader]

Do not miss the point. Yes there is an LGBTQ and they should be allowed all the freedoms as everyone else to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". My post was simply should Disney as a corporation be the company to educate a family's child, or should the parents. That is the decision Disney's corporate leaders must make. And make no mistake, it is going to be a tough hard path that they tread as the US is more divided than ever on social issues.

 

[Smugpugmug]

Do not miss the point. Yes there is an LGBTQ and they should be allowed all the freedoms as everyone else to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". My post was simply should Disney as a corporation be the company to educate a family's child, or should the parents. That is the decision Disney's corporate leaders must make. And make no mistake, it is going to be a tough hard path that they tread as the US is more divided than ever on social issues.

No company should be educating children. That's on the parents. Parents that expect corporations to teach their children are the same ones that would complain that their 8 year old is playing Call of Duty or watching an R rated movie. If people are upset about the presence of LGBT characters in media, that says more about them than Disney.

 

[Liquidice]

Thanks for sharing. I have no idea about Renegade(I'm old I guess), but for every movie/show that failed because it had some hidden "agenda" I can probably show you two that failed without any ...so there goes that theory! I haven't seen Ms. Marvel, but I hear it isn't doing well -but maybe it is? As far as filtering goes, I understand your perspective(I have two grown daughters) -but I don't know, we can't "protect" our children forever. I'd be much more concerned with violent content over an uncomfortable love scene ...yet some people complaining turn around and buy their kid Call of Duty for entertainment ..LOL. I'm convinced, for better or worse, our children have a 99% chance of turning out just like us regardless of the influences of society. As Jimmy Buffett poetically stated ..."We're the people our parents warned us about."

I don't particularly care for Chapek either, but I'll give the guy a chance -it hasn't been the easiest times to navigate through. His problem is he has no social skills and it's blatantly obvious ..you need to be able to read people and adapt. Numbers only get you so far.

I didn't know about the Renegade Online channel until someone shared it in this thread The reason I was interested in watching the videos is because they have someone named "WDW Pro" who talks a lot about Disney Parks rumors - which I'm more interested in than the movies and Disney+ shows

Ms Marvel isn't doing well, you're right about that The reason they say it is not doing well is because viewers are fed up with many of the recent Disney shows and movies having an agenda and they want people to know it is a wholesome family show and you can safely watch it. I don't know if I agree on whether thats why it isn't doing well or not - but I do watch the show with my kids.

I think the argument beyond just Lightyear is that there have been multiple movies that haven't done as well as Disney would have liked or expected. Dr. Strange Multiverse of Madness has also not done as well as Disney expected (even though this film is squarely not for children). So the rumor is the direction Disney will be taking is to try to appeal to the majority of audiences moving forward. I personally don't have a problem with this, I understand others may not agree - but this is a business decision for Chapek.

I know you can't protect your children forever - but right now, for my kids who are still in elementary school, I'd like to try to monitor what they watch. For sure, at some point (probably as they become teens) they will rebel and watch whatever they want and there is only so much you can do to prevent that. There had been little to no argument when videos that seemed meant for children showed up on YouTube Kids but they depicted very non-children situations of children's characters like suicide and I'm definitely opposed to those videos too. Neither of my kids play violent video games though, and generally don't watch violent movies or TV shows too. Most of the content they watch are actually videos about Disney World

And as a family of Disney parks lovers, that is why my focus on Chapek's performance has been mostly around the parks - where he hasn't done a great job so far. I don't have a choice whether to give him a chance for the next 3 years though - the board has done that for us - I just hope it gets better from here and not worse!

 

[starlite_]

It's been interesting reading this thread despite the obvious trolling intent of OP.

As a corporation Disney goal is to make money for its investors while entertaining its customers. I googled and found that approx 3% of the total population is LGBTQ. So if Disney wants to include same sex kisses and other scenes in their movies that give a nod to same sex relationship, that is their decision. The thing is that the other 97% of the population may not care for these scenes. In fact, a good number of the population openly reject these scenes for their children's consumption. The question is not in being homophobic, but at what age and how parents want to introduce their children to the LGBTQ community. From the backlash, it appears that there are many families do not want Disney to be playing that role. Disney risks alienating a huge percent of the nations families. So to all on this thread, what would you do to meet the goals as stated on the first sentence of this post.

What's the dif between a man an a woman kissing and two women kissing? What's the dif between say, Rapunzel and Flynn kissing in Tangled and Hawthorne and her wife kissing in Lightyear?? How is one ok and the other isn't? And if the answer is "it's LGBT+!!" how pray tell isn't that homophobic??

 

[GAN]

Do not miss the point. Yes there is an LGBTQ and they should be allowed all the freedoms as everyone else to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". My post was simply should Disney as a corporation be the company to educate a family's child, or should the parents. That is the decision Disney's corporate leaders must make. And make no mistake, it is going to be a tough hard path that they tread as the US is more divided than ever on social issues.

I'm not sure I see the difference whether a child sees two teenage boys holding hands on Main St in WDW(which I did see this past May, as well as children) or in a movie? Either case you're likely to get a question from your child -as a parent you have the opportunity to open a discussion and educate them. However you like. Disney isn't creating some false reality(which I would have a problem with) -it's already there.
Our Country just seems more divided because social media magnifies it ..we were founded as a divided nation. That's the beauty -no one gets what they want! LOL...

 

[Liquidice]

As I've given this some more thought - I'll say, my issue with Disney movies and shows lately is that they seem to be writing stories to hit their agendas instead of focusing on storytelling.

I don't care about any kind of LGBTQ+ scenes because for the most part like others have said they don't depict anything different than what they show in older movies.

However, I do think that certain stories have been written with a specific agenda in mind - and I know some people may wholeheartedly disagree with me or automatically label me as racist/sexist/whatever else because of this - but I'd like to think I can separate good storytelling from discriminating against a certain person.

When a good story is told, I don't care about who the characters are in terms of their beliefs or whatever. But there are Disney movies and shows in recent history that sacrifice storytelling to push an agenda - and I do agree that storytelling should come first. Classic Disney, Star Wars, etc movies and TV had good character development that made you care about the characters and care about the story in a way that some Disney shows lately have not done a good enough job of and in my opinion - they have instead focused on pushing an agenda.

I haven't seen Lightyear personally (will watch it once it hits Disney+) - so I can't comment personally on whether the story was any good.

The question though is - do the majority of moviegoers and Disney+ subscribers care about this? As I think that is what Disney and Chapek care about.

 

[gorkt]

Interesting thread. I started reading it, and I am not finished yet, so forgive me if I repeat themes that might have come up previously.

I think the problems with Disney at the moment can't be isolated to one CEO. He is doing what he can to keep the company growing and keep the shareholders happy in the moment. That is literally what his job is. My issues with Disney are a series of decisions about the direction of the company going back decades - its a long term problem that isn't being addressed by a short term mindset. The risk is that these longer term decisions might begin to erode the good will that has kept people coming and kept stock prices high. It hasn't happened yet, obviously.

Disney suffers from some unique problems that it created for itself, partly due to its own success. The product that was created became a symbol of middle class success and status. Inter-generational trips are a big draw, and parents who have great memories want to bring their kids, or grand kids. A trip to Disney is now part of the middle class childhood experience in America for a lot of folks. That drove a huge built in demand that makes crowds unmanageable at many times of the year. That still wasn't enough for people to stop coming though, because they wanted the best for their kids.

As society has become more unequal, and the middle class is getting hollowed out, Disney has naturally followed those trends and shaped their product accordingly. They have gone away from the one fits all egalitarian model of free fast pass systems towards paid tiered systems and experiences that were exclusionary. So some people, people who have more money to spend, now have the ability to buy a better experience, which is keeping the money flowing. And people who don't have the money for those perks are seeing the experience they are used to degrade bit by bit. This also begins to solve the demand problem for Disney.

It might take some time, but gradually, middle class people will have poor experiences, and their kids will have poor experiences, while upper middle class people will have great experiences and great memories. They will bring in less people, but those people can and will spend a lot more money. They are also marketing more towards "whales", those WDW fans that go many times a year. A few whales will bring in more than a bunch of middle class once in a lifetime travelers.

The poor and degraded experiences are literally the point. It's the long term strategy of converting WDW from a middle class destination to a premium destination. That has the dual purpose of reducing crowd sizes while increasing profits. Chapek is only following the overall direction of the US late stage capitalist economy.

 

[Jonfw2]

Interesting thread. I started reading it, and I am not finished yet, so forgive me if I repeat themes that might have come up previously.

I think the problems with Disney at the moment can't be isolated to one CEO. He is doing what he can to keep the company growing and keep the shareholders happy in the moment. That is literally what his job is. My issues with Disney are a series of decisions about the direction of the company going back decades - its a long term problem that isn't being addressed by a short term mindset. The risk is that these longer term decisions might begin to erode the good will that has kept people coming and kept stock prices high. It hasn't happened yet, obviously.

Disney suffers from some unique problems that it created for itself, partly due to its own success. The product that was created became a symbol of middle class success and status. Inter-generational trips are a big draw, and parents who have great memories want to bring their kids, or grand kids. A trip to Disney is now part of the middle class childhood experience in America for a lot of folks. That drove a huge built in demand that makes crowds unmanageable at many times of the year. That still wasn't enough for people to stop coming though, because they wanted the best for their kids.

As society has become more unequal, and the middle class is getting hollowed out, Disney has naturally followed those trends and shaped their product accordingly. They have gone away from the one fits all egalitarian model of free fast pass systems towards paid tiered systems and experiences that brought everyone in. So some people, people who have more money to spend, now have the ability to buy a better experience, which is keeping the money flowing. And people who don't have the money for those perks are seeing the experience they are used to degrade bit by bit. This also begins to solve the demand problem for Disney.

It might take some time, but gradually, middle class people will have poor experiences, and their kids will have poor experiences, while upper middle class people will have great experiences and great memories. They will bring in less people, but those people can and will spend a lot more money. They are also marketing more towards "whales", those WDW fans that go many times a year. A few whales will bring in more than a bunch of middle class once in a lifetime travelers.

The poor and degraded experiences are literally the point. It's the long term strategy of converting WDW from a middle class destination to a premium destination. That has the dual purpose of reducing crowd sizes while increasing profits. Chapek is only following the overall direction of the US late stage capitalist economy.

Fascinating stuff! Not sure I agree 100%, but I think you make a lot of exceptional points.

 

[ChipnDale79]

The question is not in being homophobic

yes it is.

 

[Smugpugmug]

As I've given this some more thought - I'll say, my issue with Disney movies and shows lately is that they seem to be writing stories to hit their agendas instead of focusing on storytelling.

I don't care about any kind of LGBTQ+ scenes because for the most part like others have said they don't depict anything different than what they show in older movies.

However, I do think that certain stories have been written with a specific agenda in mind - and I know some people may wholeheartedly disagree with me or automatically label me as racist/sexist/whatever else because of this - but I'd like to think I can separate good storytelling from discriminating against a certain person.

When a good story is told, I don't care about who the characters are in terms of their beliefs or whatever. But there are Disney movies and shows in recent history that sacrifice storytelling to push an agenda - and I do agree that storytelling should come first. Classic Disney, Star Wars, etc movies and TV had good character development that made you care about the characters and care about the story in a way that some Disney shows lately have not done a good enough job of and in my opinion - they have instead focused on pushing an agenda.

I haven't seen Lightyear personally (will watch it once it hits Disney+) - so I can't comment personally on whether the story was any good.

The question though is - do the majority of moviegoers and Disney+ subscribers care about this? As I think that is what Disney and Chapek care about.

So I agree but not in the way you might think.

I really feel like Disney does the absolute bare minimum in adding LGBT characters to their stories and then expect to be padded on the back for it. Like remember when the live action Beauty and the Beast remake came out and Disney was really pushing Lefou being gay as a selling point? And then in the actual movie, Lefou has 2-3 lines that COULD imply that he has romantic feelings for Gaston and then he dances with a man at the end? Yeah that's not really great LGBT representation. Same with the one police officer character in Onward having ONE line and then that one line being changed in international releases of the film.

 

[k5xs]

As I've given this some more thought - I'll say, my issue with Disney movies and shows lately is that they seem to be writing stories to hit their agendas instead of focusing on storytelling.

I don't care about any kind of LGBTQ+ scenes because for the most part like others have said they don't depict anything different than what they show in older movies.

However, I do think that certain stories have been written with a specific agenda in mind - and I know some people may wholeheartedly disagree with me or automatically label me as racist/sexist/whatever else because of this - but I'd like to think I can separate good storytelling from discriminating against a certain person.

When a good story is told, I don't care about who the characters are. But there are Disney movies and shows in recent history that sacrifice storytelling to push an agenda - and I do agree that storytelling should come first.

There are some who would argue that past storytelling was equally focused on an equally "specific agenda" in mind: promoting the status quo of a dominant White heterosexual culture/lifestyle while either ignoring other cultures/lifestyles altogether or denigrating them.

I am a 70 year-old White male and grew up in France and the U.S. South. IIRC, virtually every film I saw growing up has White heterosexual people as its protagonist stars, as did my readers in school.

So I have no quarrel with modern-day Disney "seem[ing] to be writing stories to hit their agendas." It's about time.

 

[gorkt]

And I found this quote really interesting:

The thing is that the other 97% of the population may not care for these scenes. In fact, a good number of the population openly reject these scenes for their children's consumption. The question is not in being homophobic, but at what age and how parents want to introduce their children to the LGBTQ community. From the backlash, it appears that there are many families do not want Disney to be playing that role. Disney risks alienating a huge percent of the nations families. So to all on this thread, what would you do to meet the goals as stated on the first sentence of this post.

You seem to think this 97% is in isolation to other members of the human race, completely segragated. Do you understand that many of us, although not LGTBQ+, have family members and friends who are? For my part, if Disney had not done what they did in terms of speaking out against DeSantis, I would have likely cancelled my upcoming trip. I am SUPER happy the Disney, as a corporation, is becoming more inclusive, and showing kids that families come in all shapes and types. Love is an expanding force, not an exclusionary one. The more kids that are exposed to positive portrayals of LGTBQ+ folks, the happier I am.

If the families that want to never have their kids exposed to LGTBQ+ folks feel alienated, I would hope that they look inside their hearts and minds to try to understand why.

 

[Liquidice]

Interesting thread. I started reading it, and I am not finished yet, so forgive me if I repeat themes that might have come up previously.

I think the problems with Disney at the moment can't be isolated to one CEO. He is doing what he can to keep the company growing and keep the shareholders happy in the moment. That is literally what his job is. My issues with Disney are a series of decisions about the direction of the company going back decades - its a long term problem that isn't being addressed by a short term mindset. The risk is that these longer term decisions might begin to erode the good will that has kept people coming and kept stock prices high. It hasn't happened yet, obviously.

Disney suffers from some unique problems that it created for itself, partly due to its own success. The product that was created became a symbol of middle class success and status. Inter-generational trips are a big draw, and parents who have great memories want to bring their kids, or grand kids. A trip to Disney is now part of the middle class childhood experience in America for a lot of folks. That drove a huge built in demand that makes crowds unmanageable at many times of the year. That still wasn't enough for people to stop coming though, because they wanted the best for their kids.

As society has become more unequal, and the middle class is getting hollowed out, Disney has naturally followed those trends and shaped their product accordingly. They have gone away from the one fits all egalitarian model of free fast pass systems towards paid tiered systems and experiences that were exclusionary. So some people, people who have more money to spend, now have the ability to buy a better experience, which is keeping the money flowing. And people who don't have the money for those perks are seeing the experience they are used to degrade bit by bit. This also begins to solve the demand problem for Disney.

It might take some time, but gradually, middle class people will have poor experiences, and their kids will have poor experiences, while upper middle class people will have great experiences and great memories. They will bring in less people, but those people can and will spend a lot more money. They are also marketing more towards "whales", those WDW fans that go many times a year. A few whales will bring in more than a bunch of middle class once in a lifetime travelers.

The poor and degraded experiences are literally the point. It's the long term strategy of converting WDW from a middle class destination to a premium destination. That has the dual purpose of reducing crowd sizes while increasing profits. Chapek is only following the overall direction of the US late stage capitalist economy.

I disagree that DIsney is targeting whales that come multiple times per year.

Disney has been targeting once in a lifetime customers who have FOMO and want to experience everything in one trip and will pay up-charges without any thought.

They try to target DVC sales, but once the sales are made - Disney isn't trying to keep DVC members happy imho. We are an already sold customer, so they don't need to do anything to keep us.

I do go to Disney World multiple times per year and I don't feel any of the love from Disney right now. Maybe I'm not enough of a whale though, but I definitely spend a lot of money there each trip (eat at a signature restaurant at least once per trip, eat on property the entire trip, spend too much money on merch each trip).

If they wanted to target whales there would be more perks to return to the parks like a loyalty system the same way airlines do it imho or some kind of lure to return. They've cut most perks for resort guests too (DVC included).

Disneyland tends to target repeat customers more because that is their market, most visitors are locals and repeat visitors - even though they are currently at war with their APs. This is why imho you always see new character meet & greets for movies and Disney+ shows at Disneyland but rarely in Disney World.

Disney World though - definitely focused on once in a lifetime or once in awhile customers.

Disney World is also screwing their APs imho there just isn't a class action law suit (yet). But they are continuously trying to get APs blocked from the park in favor of ticket holders and resort guests.

 

[BrianL]

As I've given this some more thought - I'll say, my issue with Disney movies and shows lately is that they seem to be writing stories to hit their agendas instead of focusing on storytelling.

I don't care about any kind of LGBTQ+ scenes because for the most part like others have said they don't depict anything different than what they show in older movies.

However, I do think that certain stories have been written with a specific agenda in mind - and I know some people may wholeheartedly disagree with me or automatically label me as racist/sexist/whatever else because of this - but I'd like to think I can separate good storytelling from discriminating against a certain person.

When a good story is told, I don't care about who the characters are in terms of their beliefs or whatever. But there are Disney movies and shows in recent history that sacrifice storytelling to push an agenda - and I do agree that storytelling should come first. Classic Disney, Star Wars, etc movies and TV had good character development that made you care about the characters and care about the story in a way that some Disney shows lately have not done a good enough job of and in my opinion - they have instead focused on pushing an agenda.

I haven't seen Lightyear personally (will watch it once it hits Disney+) - so I can't comment personally on whether the story was any good.

The question though is - do the majority of moviegoers and Disney+ subscribers care about this? As I think that is what Disney and Chapek care about.

You are right in that there is a lot of material out there- not just Disney - where the representation seems forced and does a dissercice to the narrative. To me, this is actually BAD for representation and the groups intended to benefit from it. When it's more organic, and part of the story, and not made out to be any kind of big deal, that is the best kind and I think most people are fine with that.

So I agree but not in the way you might think.

I really feel like Disney does the absolute bare minimum in adding LGBT characters to their stories and then expect to be padded on the back for it. Like remember when the live action Beauty and the Beast remake came out and Disney was really pushing Lefou being gay as a selling point? And then in the actual movie, Lefou has 2-3 lines that COULD imply that he has romantic feelings for Gaston and then he dances with a man at the end? Yeah that's not really great LGBT representation. Same with the one police officer character in Onward having ONE line and then that one line being changed in international releases on the film.

They are starting to do more with this recently, branching out into more main characters (or close to main characters). The only thing is that this may make it feel even more forced, but it will depend on the story being told. As above, it needs to seem organic, and as long as it does, then it's no big deal at all. The problems stem from when there is an edict from higher-up that that every movie/story have that representation - then it gets forced in to the detriment of the story. The point of more representation is to not treat any one group differently, but by making a big point of it, you are treating them differently - even if it is with the intent to elevate/compliment said group. It's a tricky line to walk really.