In Defense of Bob Chapek

[gorkt]

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.

So my take on this is, once they get you to buy DVC, they already got you. You ARE the whale. They have your money coming in. You are now a fixed profit stream for 30+ years, and they don't care if you are happy anymore. They know you will be buying tickets, park food, paying dues etc... They aren't going to put any more energy into keeping you happy than they have to.

I do agree most of the energy is put towards the first time upper middle class and higher travelers. They want to provide the best experience possible in order to hook you in and get you to invest in DVC. That's why they are still building lots of DVC, and incentivizing direct sales.

 

[afan]

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.

But it's not about educating it's about representation. It's no different than a movie or tv show showing a more diverse cast so that all people and kids can see themselves represented. It's the same for this. And it should be normalized not shoved under a rug because it makes the adults in the room uncomfortable. Entertainment evolves as society does.

 

[Liquidice]

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.

When the agenda gets in the way of storytelling thats where I have the problem. BTW- I am not a white male.

I'll probably get flamed for this - but take Star Wars - one quick example...

In the original trilogy, Luke has basically no powers in A New Hope. He gets lucky using his feelings to blow up the Death Star.

Compared to The Force Awakens (which is a movie I mostly like mind you) - Rey, without any training can use the force to tell a Stormtrooper to let her go, can force pull a lightsaber towards her (and stronger than Kylo Ren who does have training).

There seemed to be an agenda here that they needed to tell a story with a strong female character with no faults, no struggle, little to no character development. Mind you, I don't care if the lead is a woman or not (I know others will label me here) - I just want a good story.

Maybe it is just lazy / bad writing and not an agenda But the Star Wars sequel trilogy is not great. If there were no Star Wars and this was a trilogy on its own, it likely would have flopped. And the box office numbers agree.

Mandalorian on the other hand has been a more well written show imho. It doesn't seem like there is any kind of agenda, but maybe I'm too dense to get it. Its too bad they didn't cast a female lead for Mando as maybe that would have helped to prove what most of us want is good storytelling.

Book of Boba Fett didn't have an agenda either - but the show just wasn't that good period. So I'm not trying to say you automatically solve the problem of bad writing by not having an agenda or anything. Crappy movies and TV shows exist all throughout the history of film.

 

[Liquidice]

So my take on this is, once they get you to buy DVC, they already got you. You ARE the whale. They have your money coming in. You are now a fixed profit stream for 30+ years, and they don't care if you are happy anymore. They know you will be buying tickets, park food, paying dues etc... They aren't going to put any more energy into keeping you happy than they have to.

I do agree most of the energy is put towards the first time upper middle class and higher travelers. They want to provide the best experience possible in order to hook you in and get you to invest in DVC. That's why they are still building lots of DVC, and incentivizing direct sales.

Right but other than marketing for DVC, they certainly aren't trying to keep the whales coming to Disney parks.

Even direct sale incentives - other than Moonlight Magic coming back and TOTWL becoming a blue card perk only (but from now until at least August 11th, it will require you pay $55 to reserve your spot) are pretty fleeting right now.

I can just as easily use my timeshare to go to Universal or stay at the resort, nothing keeps me going to the Disney parks other than proximity.

Chapek and team don't seem to be doing enough imho to make return customers want to go to Disney. Maybe they don't need to though. For me personally, my kids are at that Disney age - but I can easily see us going to Epic Universe when it opens and stop going to Disney World.

 

[Aluminum Falcon]

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.

That is a huge generalization, that’s like saying 60% of the US pop is white, so they wouldn’t want to see a movie with a minority lead in it.

 

[gorkt]

When the agenda gets in the way of storytelling thats where I have the problem. BTW- I am not a white male.

I'll probably get flamed for this - but take Star Wars - one quick example...

In the original trilogy, Luke has basically no powers in A New Hope. He gets lucky using his feelings to blow up the Death Star.

Compared to The Force Awakens (which is a movie I mostly like mind you) - Rey, without any training can use the force to tell a Stormtrooper to let her go, can force pull a lightsaber towards her (and stronger than Kylo Ren who does have training).

There seemed to be an agenda here that they needed to tell a story with a strong female character with no faults, no struggle, little to no character development. Mind you, I don't care if the lead is a woman or not (I know others will label me here) - I just want a good story.

I am confused. Aren't there lots of terrible stories, all with white men in them? Why do see an agenda where there is none? Why does one woman in a leading role in a story constitute an "agenda'? Who is making this agenda? Be specific. I want names.

You are really grasping at straws here. And actually, I loved Rey, as did a lot of other people. The issues with the sequels aren't really about her, in my view.

 

[Liquidice]

I am confused. Aren't there lots of terrible stories, all with white men in them? Why do see an agenda where there is none? Why does one woman in a leading role in a story constitute an "agenda'? Who is making this agenda? Be specific. I want names.

You are really grasping at straws here. And actually, I loved Rey, as did a lot of other people. The issues with the sequels aren't really about her, in my view.

Like I said in my previous post (I think I edited and added it while you were replying), bad movies have always existed since the beginning of film - so prioritizing agenda over storytelling is not the only thing that makes a bad movie. I even said Book of Boba Fett did not appear to have any agenda in my mind and it was terrible too.

I'm sure there are movies that had an agenda of "white males are the best" that are equally as terrible. Movies with an agenda aren't limited to ones trying to push a LGBTQ+ or woke agenda.

Again, I'm not saying that having a woman - at least in my example in the leading role means that the movie has an agenda. I even said I wished (again this was in an edit) what I said was a "good" example of Star Wars storytelling (Mandalorian) would have had a female lead, because it isn't about whether the lead is female or lesbian or gay or whatever. For me it is about whether the story is good or not.

For Star Wars, I'm sure it isn't just one person making the agenda - but Kathleen Kennedy is one person who has been specifically named as having an agenda when it comes to Star Wars.

I honestly don't spend much time worrying about this normally - so I don't know other names in the industry or within Disney. Star Wars is one I know because I am a big SW fan and follow news about it. If you're interested in this point of view, Thor Skywalker's channel on YouTube has some good arguments about this that imho are not pro-white male agenda, rather he is pro-storytelling.

I'm glad that you like Rey as a character - but I know a lot of people, myself included that felt she was a character with little to no character development and essentially no flaws which detracted from the storytelling and some of that came from having an agenda with the sequel trilogy. Good storytelling for me means the character has to go through an arc and I didn't see Rey going through that arc. Thats just my opinion though and I respect yours and mine are different ... and thats OK!

 

[Jonfw2]

Like I said in my previous post (I think I edited and added it while you were replying), bad movies have always existed since the beginning of film - so prioritizing agenda over storytelling is not the only thing that makes a bad movie. I even said Book of Boba Fett did not appear to have any agenda in my mind and it was terrible too.

I'm sure there are movies that had an agenda of "white males are the best" that are equally as terrible. Movies with an agenda other than telling a good story aren't limited to ones trying to push a particular agenda.

Again, I'm not saying that having a woman - at least in my example in the leading role means that the movie has an agenda. I even said I wished (again this was in an edit) what I said was a "good" example of Star Wars storytelling (Mandalorian) would have had a female lead, because it isn't about whether the lead is female or lesbian or gay or whatever. For me it is about whether the story is good or not.

For Star Wars, I'm sure it isn't just one person making the agenda - but Kathleen Kennedy is one person who has been specifically named as having an agenda when it comes to Star Wars.

I honestly don't spend much time worrying about this normally - so I don't know other names in the industry or within Disney. Star Wars is one I know because I am a big SW fan and follow news about it. If you're interested in this point of view, Thor Skywalker's channel on YouTube has some good arguments about this that imho are not pro-white male agenda, rather he is pro-storytelling.

I'm glad that you like Rey as a character - but I know a lot of people, myself included that felt she was a character with little to no character development and essentially no flaws which detracted from the storytelling and some of that came from having an agenda with the sequel trilogy. Good storytelling for me means the character has to go through an arc and I didn't see Rey going through that arc. Thats just my opinion though and I respect yours and mine are different ... and thats OK!

Since you brought up Mando- that show had a VERY strong female lead character and she was booted from the show because of her political opinions.

 

[BrianL]

When the agenda gets in the way of storytelling thats where I have the problem. BTW- I am not a white male.

I'll probably get flamed for this - but take Star Wars - one quick example...

In the original trilogy, Luke has basically no powers in A New Hope. He gets lucky using his feelings to blow up the Death Star.

Compared to The Force Awakens (which is a movie I mostly like mind you) - Rey, without any training can use the force to tell a Stormtrooper to let her go, can force pull a lightsaber towards her (and stronger than Kylo Ren who does have training).

There seemed to be an agenda here that they needed to tell a story with a strong female character with no faults, no struggle, little to no character development. Mind you, I don't care if the lead is a woman or not (I know others will label me here) - I just want a good story.

Maybe it is just lazy / bad writing and not an agenda But the Star Wars sequel trilogy is not great. If there were no Star Wars and this was a trilogy on its own, it likely would have flopped. And the box office numbers agree.

Mandalorian on the other hand has been a more well written show imho. It doesn't seem like there is any kind of agenda, but maybe I'm too dense to get it. Its too bad they didn't cast a female lead for Mando as maybe that would have helped to prove what most of us want is good storytelling.

Book of Boba Fett didn't have an agenda either - but the show just wasn't that good period. So I'm not trying to say you automatically solve the problem of bad writing by not having an agenda or anything. Crappy movies and TV shows exist all throughout the history of film.

See, this is where I don't get the criticisms of Rey. Luke clearly did have powers and no training - he used the Force to make that shot, with just a little guidance from Obi-Wan. Luke flew an X-Wing with absolutely ZERO flight time on that vehicle! Rey was already a trained fighter and had at least some idea of what the Force is. Sure, she seems naturally talented, but no more so than Anakin was - he was Forcing it up at 10 years old! And Rey absolutely still had struggles and a character arc, it was just more about learning who she is and where she comes from than it was about getting stronger. She eventually does reconcile her past enabling her to grow into something more. It has nothing to do with her being female though, it's just the hero trope. Like how Luke was such a naturally great pilot or how Anakin could fix anything. HEck, in the ST, Poe is the best dang pilot ever - and he's a guy. He and Finn and Rey are shown to be so great becuase they are the main heroes, and that's no different than the OT or the PT.

And, yeah, that's a total waste of text because nothing I say will ever make anyone feel any differently about their love or hate for the movies.

 

[Moliphino]

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.

For some reason people think a show with a teen girl lead (like Ms. Marvel) is just for kids, but will happily watch movies focusing on a teen boy (Spiderman).

 

[Liquidice]

See, this is where I don't get teh criticism's of Rey. Luke clearly did have powers and no training - he used the Force to make that shot, with just a little guidance from Obi-Wan. Luke flew an X-Wing with absolutely ZERO flight time on that vehicle! Rey was already a trained fighter and had at least some idea of what the Force is. Sure, she seems naturally talented, but no more so than Anakin was - he was Forcing it up at 10 years old! And Rey absolutely still had struggles and a character arc, it was just more about learning who she is and where she comes from than it was about getting stronger. She eventually does reconcile her past enabling her to grow into something more. It has nothing to do with her being female though, it's just the hero trope. Like how Luke was such a naturally great pilot or how Anakin could fix anything. HEck, in the ST, Poe is the best dang pilot ever - and he's a guy. He and Finn and Rey are shown to be so great becuase they are the main heroes, and that's no different than the OT or the PT.

And, yeah, that's a total waste of text because nothing I say will ever make anyone feel any differently about their love or hate for the movies.

LOL yeah it is just an opinion

Like I said - maybe it isn't an agenda and just lazy / bad writing (imho) - good storytelling imho wasn't the priority in the sequel trilogy.

 

[Liquidice]

For some reason people think a show with a teen girl lead (like Ms. Marvel) is just for kids, but will happily watch movies focusing on a teen boy (Spiderman).

I don't recall saying Ms Marvel was only for kids, a family show imho is one that everyone can enjoy, kids included. I would happily watch Spiderman with my kids too. When I said I watch Ms Marvel with my kids - I didn't mean it was like torture watching it with my kids ... I meant I have been enjoying watching it with my kids

Most of the shows made exclusively for kids, I can't stand to watch but my kids love (even some of the shows I loved as a child are horrible to watch as an adult because the stories are way over simplified for a younger audience).

 

[BrianL]

LOL yeah it is just an opinion

Like I said - maybe it isn't an agenda and just lazy / bad writing (imho) - good storytelling imho wasn't the priority in the sequel trilogy.

Sure, and valid criticism is one thing, but so many people cite these issues with Rey, and totally ignor that they apply to Anakin and Luke. I do think they are more sensitive to it because they do see that "agenda" that they dislike, but really, it's just not there. Sure, the execs probably did get together and say, hey, we should make the main Jedi-type character a woman in the new trilogy - but I'm sure that they didn't say, "We need the main character to be female, be portrayed as practically perfect in every way, better than all male characters, make all male characters stupid so she shines by comparison, she can have no flaws and will be more powerful than any character in Star Wars ever because she's a woman!" That's just ridiculously silly, but that's what it comes off as.

The only female character that is practically perfect in every way is Mary Poppins - and yes, she's very cool indeed!

 

[TheHannas]

Can you spare a square? Or do you not have a square to spare???

That voice! I know that voice!!?? Classic

 

[gorkt]

I just kind of laugh at the word "agenda". Like I asked before, who is making this agenda? I want specific names. The only agenda I see is to make money, and at a certain point, as a wider variety of people with different backgrounds gained rights and, in time, more wealth and spending power. Entertainment companies, in order to be competitive, widened their stories to add different types of people to add appeal to those demographics.

The issue is that in a very polarized world, to include more people is somehow alienating to certain types of people. They will come up with all sorts of reasons to justify it, but it comes down to the basic thing: "Things look and feel different to me than they used to, and it makes me uncomfortable." Rather than examine that discomfort, they will happily use the force of the state in order to compel businesses to change their policies.

 

[Jonfw2]

I just kind of laugh at the word "agenda". Like I asked before, who is making this agenda? I want specific names. The only agenda I see is to make money, and at a certain point, as a wider variety of people with different backgrounds gained rights and, in time, more wealth and spending power. Entertainment companies, in order to be competitive, widened their stories to add different types of people to add appeal to those demographics.

The issue is that in a very polarized world, to include more people is somehow alienating to certain types of people. They will come up with all sorts of reasons to justify it, but it comes down to the basic thing: "Things look and feel different to me than they used to, and it makes me uncomfortable." Rather than examine that discomfort, they will happily use the force of the state in order to compel businesses to change their policies.

All groups have agendas. It's why they exist. It's not inherently good or bad, it just is.

 

[BrianL]

All groups have agendas. It's why they exist. It's not inherently good or bad, it just is.

You are right, and the agenda of Disney is to sell movie tickets, theme park tickets, merchandise, streaming subscriptions, and anything else they can to make money. Anything else is in service to that goal in one way or another.

 

[Liquidice]

I just kind of laugh at the word "agenda". Like I asked before, who is making this agenda? I want specific names. The only agenda I see is to make money, and at a certain point, as a wider variety of people with different backgrounds gained rights and, in time, more wealth and spending power. Entertainment companies, in order to be competitive, widened their stories to add different types of people to add appeal to those demographics.

The issue is that in a very polarized world, to include more people is somehow alienating to certain types of people. They will come up with all sorts of reasons to justify it, but it comes down to the basic thing: "Things look and feel different to me than they used to, and it makes me uncomfortable." Rather than examine that discomfort, they will happily use the force of the state in order to compel businesses to change their policies.

Well again according to Renegade Online - Disney movies of late have not been making enough money and Disney+ shows aren't doing well enough - and agenda or not, they're saying Chapek is trying to change how movies will be made in the future with a focus on trying to stay out of politics in the "middle" (what that will mean - I don't know).

I wish I could find the article - but there was one saying Chapek will be implementing "moderation" for all upcoming films and TV shows as well to ensure they fit into Chapek's pillars for Disney.

Maybe none of it is true and these so called insiders are completely wrong and off-basis (but history shows they have been right about other rumors).

Also possible - that this change means absolutely nothing to the content they put out.

 

[BrianL]

Well again according to Renegade Online - Disney movies of late have not been making enough money and Disney+ shows aren't doing well enough - and agenda or not, they're saying Chapek is trying to change how movies will be made in the future with a focus on trying to stay out of politics in the "middle" (what that will mean - I don't know).

I wish I could find the article - but there was one saying Chapek will be implementing "moderation" for all upcoming films and TV shows as well to ensure they fit into Chapek's pillars for Disney.

Maybe none of it is true and these so called insiders are completely wrong and off-basis (but history shows they have been right about other rumors).

Also possible - that this change means absolutely nothing to the content they put out.

But is the reason these movies are underperforming because of an agenda? Did Lightyear flop because it has a gay character or was it just because it wasn't really that good? If it's the former, then why do other movies that also have gay characters do well? Every time a movie has that dreaded "agenda" and fails, the detractors point to that as the reason, but they are silent when other movies do very well. It's quite disingenuous!

 

[Liquidice]

But is the reason these movies are underperforming because of an agenda? Did Lightyear flop because it has a gay character or was it just because it wasn't really that good? If it's the former, then why do other movies that also have gay characters do well? Every time a movie has that dreaded "agenda" and fails, the detractors point to that as the reason, but they are silent when other movies do very well. It's quite disingenuous!

I honestly don't know. The claim from Renegade Online and others is yes, but lets just say for example that isn't the reason and the reason is because the movies aren't very good - but Renegade Online is correct in saying that Chapek is tightening the reigns on movie production and having all stories reviewed by a team who will ensure the movies are successful not by removing diversity or inclusion - but by making sure the movies (and shows) are better by telling a more compelling and interesting story - it all sounds good to me.

You have to admit - there have been quite a few movies (and rumored Disney+ shows too) that have gone through significant amounts of re-work after primary filming had completed. Rogue One and Solo are 2 examples of this.

That has to be expensive to finish filming for a movie and then have to go back and re-do and in some cases re-edit the movie.

So it would make sense if Disney wanted to catch these things earlier in production.

At the end of the day, it is interesting if true as Chapek has already reportedly tried to remove decision making and P&L from many divisions within Disney and has been trying to provide control to a much smaller group of his trusted team. It is quite the opposite to the Bob Iger Disney where decision making was generally pushed down to the divisions - and it could be a big change for Disney, not just with entertainment - so will definitely be interesting to see what the future Disney is.

Knowing Chapek is heavily data driven, it does worry me about creativity being stifled if he is controlling every decision - and it has to slow down the company as a whole if all decision making is funneled up to a select few which could mean fewer innovations coming from Disney.