Bob Iger Announces 7,000 Layoffs As Disney+ Loses Subscribers (latimes.com) 204
Bob Iger, in his first earnings call since returning to the company, announced Walt Disney Co. will shed 7,000 jobs as part of a broader effort to save $5.5 billion in costs. Disney is facing pressure to control costs and boost profits as it continues to lose money from its key streaming business, which includes Disney+. The Los Angeles Times reports: The company's marquee streaming service Disney+ lost 2.4 million subscribers during the first quarter, bringing its total count to 161.8 million, mainly stemming from declines in its Disney+Hotstar product in India. The service gained subscribers elsewhere, adding 1.4 million subscribers in the U.S. and internationally, not including Hotstar. Overall, Disney's streaming apps -- Disney+, Hulu and ESPN+ -- have 235 million subscribers.
Disney's streaming business continued to bleed cash, losing more than $1 billion during the three months that ended in December. Nonetheless, Disney reported earnings and revenues that beat Wall Street estimates. The company generated sales of $23.5 billion, up 8% from the same quarter a year ago. Analysts on average had been expecting $23.4 billion in revenue. Disney's profit was $1.28 billion, up 11%. The Burbank entertainment giant's earnings of 99 cents a share exceeded projections of 78 cents. "After a solid first quarter, we are embarking on a significant transformation, one that will maximize the potential of our world-class creative teams and our unparalleled brands and franchises," Iger said in a statement. "We believe the work we are doing to reshape our company around creativity, while reducing expenses, will lead to sustained growth and profitability for our streaming business, better position us to weather future disruption and global economic challenges, and deliver value for our shareholders."
Last November, Disney reappointed Iger as CEO after Iger's hand-picked successor as CEO, Bob Chapek, came under fire for his management of the entertainment giant.
Disney's streaming business continued to bleed cash, losing more than $1 billion during the three months that ended in December. Nonetheless, Disney reported earnings and revenues that beat Wall Street estimates. The company generated sales of $23.5 billion, up 8% from the same quarter a year ago. Analysts on average had been expecting $23.4 billion in revenue. Disney's profit was $1.28 billion, up 11%. The Burbank entertainment giant's earnings of 99 cents a share exceeded projections of 78 cents. "After a solid first quarter, we are embarking on a significant transformation, one that will maximize the potential of our world-class creative teams and our unparalleled brands and franchises," Iger said in a statement. "We believe the work we are doing to reshape our company around creativity, while reducing expenses, will lead to sustained growth and profitability for our streaming business, better position us to weather future disruption and global economic challenges, and deliver value for our shareholders."
Last November, Disney reappointed Iger as CEO after Iger's hand-picked successor as CEO, Bob Chapek, came under fire for his management of the entertainment giant.
Too much fragmentation (Score:5, Insightful)
Every major streaming service has like two shows you want to watch and a ton of filler. It's not that individually they are that expensive, but by the time you've bought several to watch the shows you want, you're now paying more than what you used to pay for cable.
Re: (Score:3)
And companies like Disney intentionally make the situation even worse, since they have acquired multiple different streaming channels. One could argue that ESPN+ could stay separate... but now that Disney owns Hulu, it looks like they just arbitrarily assign some shows to Hulu and others to Disney+ basically to attempt driving people to pay for two services when the content is really only enough for one.
Hulu was arguably worthwhile as a stand-alone service back when they included properties from most of the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. I see two possibilities here:
1) The market fragmentation drives smaller players out of business, and eventually you'll get maybe three big ones remaining. However, before then, the couple of shows/movies you are interested in are kept exclusive, and as a customer you have to jump thought the whole chore of rotating your streaming service - get access to one for a while and then binge, then switch to next. In the meantime, they also get worse due to the churn, by adding unskippable ads to start and w
Re: (Score:2)
That's OK.
In a few years what'll happen is Disney will own it all and you'll be paying $200+/month to stream.
The whole point was that streaming offered a la carte service - you paid for what you wanted, and that's it. Now everyone wants it bundled together again, where you have dozens of services you don't want.
And the whole point is to pay more - the lure of cheaper bills was just a hook to get people used to the fact they're not paying more per month than with cable just to get what they already had
Re: (Score:2)
Now, we need a bundle service that can do all, legally, and cheap. :P
Re: (Score:2)
Bingo. When will these dopes realize that? Disney could make a killing if they licensed content to Netflix and Hulu et al. The exclusive content deals hurt everyone.
Worse, their exclusive content is becoming shit. Most of their SW material is crap, just content. They could be making a killing making Andor-quality material and licensing it to other providers.
They could be making a killing being a producer, leaving the delivery to someone else. Content delivery is an additional expense that Disney would not need to incur if it licensed its content to others.
Re: (Score:2)
People keep telling me that Andor is good. But it will be a long time before I'll see the end, as I cannot keep my eyes open.
Not meant as a trolling comment. The same happened when watching 'No Country for Old Men'. 3 times I went to the cinema, 3 times an attendant came to wake me up.
At least Andor won't as expensive as those cinema outings. Well, I hope that will be the case. Didn't fell asleep with 'The Mandalorian' and 'The Book of Boba Fet'.
Lately I start to like the computer animated series from Star
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that for ever Andor there are a dozen Boba Fetts. It's not that Disney isn't trying to make them good, it's just hard and they have to spend a lot of money before realizing that they wasted it.
To make up for that they use shows like Andor to get people to subscribe, subsidising all the crap. If they licenced it then the crap would be an even bigger loss for them.
The most lucrative audience members, the 18-35 market, are already spending less time on TV and more on other things like video game
We ran Star Wars into the ground (Score:3, Interesting)
This isn't about profit or loss. This is about Jerome Powell. Disney, like every multi-national, wants lower interest rates, and Powell won't lower rates until get gets blood [usatoday.com].
He's trying (and so far failing) to engineer a recession. And we've been doing it since at least 1997. [youtube.com]
It's a scary thought though. Too scary for most people to face head on. Which is why we're still dancing this Charleston after 2 1/2 decades or more.
Re: (Score:2)
Their Star Wars series were generally pretty decent.
I thought they had a fairly clever pattern going with their Star Wars / Marvel miniseries releasing new episodes every week.
However, they had really high production values and were probably damn expensive to make. I'm hoping they figure out it's more money if they license them out after a while.
Re:We ran Star Wars into the ground (Score:4, Funny)
He's trying (and so far failing) to engineer a recession.
Jesus fucking Christ you won't stop with this nonsense will you. Faking the moon landing makes more sense than anyone (including business, government, or people) wanting a recession.
No one is trying to engineer something that would be of benefit to no one. Just stop it already and get your mental health checked.
Gods forbid we raise prices (Score:2)
When we have all these workers who can take the blame for our fuckups.
Perhaps there's a different way (Score:2, Insightful)
Maybe, instead of having to subscribe to a multitude of separate services, people could pay one price for everything. They wouldn't have to jump from location to location, instead going to one centralized point where they could see everything.
Has anyone thought of this?
Re: (Score:2)
Guaranteeing a recession (Score:2)
I can understand corporations shrinking their product mix ahead of bad news, which most of the tech-orientated companies are doing at the moment. Here, Disney is not explaining how they will "control costs" of non-profitable subsidiaries: Losing customers is unlikely to be a long-term trend.
This is rich people demanding more money from a business that is doing well: Hmm, inflation is 'hurting' them so they're spreading the pain by demanding compensation from their 'servants'. (The point of corporation
Jeez.. (Score:2)
Re: Jeez.. (Score:2)
I see it more and more every year. I imagine most slashdot readers are basically just the same social outcasts who started reading this site in their youth. They are becoming easier to radicalize because all they do is sit around watching youtube videos or TV news channels that pander to their self-centered world views.
Itâ(TM)s easy to see because all the political extremists use common catchphrases and language as they are all drinking from the same firehoses. Not a lot of original thinking, but what
Media monopolies are bad. (Score:3)
No surprise (Score:2)
Disney cut almost 20,000 jobs in 2020, then cut 10k more in 2021. Then they hired a whopping 30,000 employees in 2022, despite having a fairly normal year of revenue growth. That sudden huge influx of employees meant layoffs were inevitable.
All of these layoffs are happening because a large number of companies went on a crazy hiring spree in 2022. This wasnâ(TM)t just a problem with large, pulbic companies, this was also a problem with small private companies as well. I expect to see even more layoffs
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, but WHY did they all do the same apparently foolish thing? Did they think pandemic rebound would last forever and up and up? Or what?
Too much money, not enough content (Score:2)
I signed up for Disney Plus, binged the latest season of The Orville, saw little else of interest on the channel, cancelled my subscription. I did the same thing with Netflix: signed up, caught up on a few things, pulled the plug.
I'm not going to pay for a service that lacks compelling content.
...laura
Schaden... (Score:2)
freude.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't understand Disney share holders. As much money as Disney has lost I would be raising hell.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't understand Disney share holders. As much money as Disney has lost I would be raising hell.
They are raising hell. But they disagree on what should be done. Even if they did agree, they'd likely be wrong.
A rough rule-of-thumb is that costs are cut by about $100k for each fired employee, so for 7,000 firees, that's $700M, which is only a fraction of the $5.5B they need to trim. But Disney will also lose the revenue generated by those 7,000 employees, and that's hard to measure in a complex business.
There is no obvious solution.
Re: (Score:2)
A rough rule-of-thumb is that costs are cut by about $100k for each fired employee, so for 7,000 firees, that's $700M, which is only a fraction of the $5.5B they need to trim.
The company needs to give a signal to shareholders that they are cutting costs, and that includes either layoffs or furloughs. Remember, as per the article, the layoffs are done "as part of a broader effort to save $5.5 billion in costs."
But Disney will also lose the revenue generated by those 7,000 employees, and that's hard to measure in a complex business.
There is no obvious solution.
It depends on which departments get affected. I doubt it will be engineering (involved with park systems), or park employees (aka “Cast Members”). Chances are they would be from sales, support systems or from Disney+, which lately has been the largest money pit.
Re: (Score:2)
no one likes to lay off people (except Musk, but he's weird, so.)
Jack Welch. Bottom 10% per year.
Re: (Score:2)
Jack Welch. Bottom 10% per year.
He did it because he felt it was an effective policy, not because he enjoyed firing people.
Re: (Score:2)
Jack Welch. Bottom 10% per year.
He did it because he felt it was an effective policy, not because he enjoyed firing people.
Exactly. The policy is questionable, but I can see people in charge of keeping companies afloat using it as a means to that end.
It's like what happened to Twinkies, automation and mass layoffs. It was either automating production and laying off 98% of the workforce (keeping 2%) or laying off everyone.
Of course, that's an extreme example that illustrates how we see it as a matter of choice:. Automation eliminated 21,000 jobs vs automation saved 1,000 jobs.
Putting aside the pointy-haired boss stereotype
Re: (Score:3)
Disney is following the bad path in streaming that many did - trying to be a one-stop-shop for content creation, and distribution. Instead content creators should create the content, then a separate company can stream it. Get rid of all the stupid exclusivities, it doesn't help. They made a lot of money when they licensed their content to multiple cable providers, so why do they think they need to keep it private to only their subscribers?
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that many streamers (Netflix, Amazon) realized the bulk of the profits go to the content creators and started creating their own content.
I like Amazon's model, where I get some content for free (since I already have Prime for free shipping) and can buy more ala carte. That is cheaper than a subscription since I don't watch much TV.
I canceled Netflix a few years ago. I might sign up for Disney if I had young kids, but mine are grown.
Re: (Score:2)
Netflix did this because they lost the license to so much of their content when Starz didn't renew.
Not really new in a way, back in cable/satellite delays many would threaten to cut off a set of channels if when license negotiations were going badly but they'd usually resolve the disagreement moments before pulling the plug...
I find Amazon relatively expensive. I don't sub though, I've tried it free a few times and was disappointed that most of what I wanted to watch requires a surcharge. So a sub free plu
Re: (Score:2)
Disney is following the bad path in streaming that many did - trying to be a one-stop-shop for content creation, and distribution. Instead content creators should create the content, then a separate company can stream it. Get rid of all the stupid exclusivities, it doesn't help. They made a lot of money when they licensed their content to multiple cable providers, so why do they think they need to keep it private to only their subscribers?
The problem is that much of the content created by Disney+ lately has been crap which to me is surprising since that used to be their strong suite. The Star Wars spinoffs have gotten boring and don't even get me started on how money they spent on an ad campaign trying to shove the latest season of the Kardashians down everyone's throats. Quite frankly, I haven't seen any compelling content from them lately. to be honest, their ad campaigns have actively kept me off their platform. If the Kardashians ar
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I thought that was some seriously crack-headed dishonesty but then I saw who posted it.
Remind me again which party's state governor literally named a bill the Stop W.O.K.E. Act [flsenate.gov]?
My political views probably aren't even as far left as you'd like to believe, and that's a large contributing factor to why I wish the Republicans would stop horsing around with this sort of garbage and get back to solving real issues which actually affect their constituents. I didn't vote for them, but I'd still prefer to see them working in the best interests of the entire electorate - not just the misguided folks i
Re: (Score:2)
To the republicans, the "real" issues is making sure their constituents keep voting for them and sending in campaign donations. They gain more votes by bashing gays than they lose, so not matter how many times someone wants to get the party into the modern age they'll keep doing it. I remember over a decade ago when my mother asked how to "get google off of her computer" because they offered benefits to employee's domestic partners. Maybe the thinking is that if they make everything they dislike illegal
Re: (Score:2)
Just as animals don't act "for the good of the species," politicians don't act "for the good of the party." A politician is only interested in their own re-election. If they live in a conservative rural district, they can win by bashing gays and championing traditional values. It isn't their problem if that makes Republicans less electable in suburban districts.
Re: (Score:2)
If they live in a conservative rural district, they can win by bashing gays and championing traditional values.
Republican politicians can also win in rural areas by improving education, addressing the opioid epidemic, delivering healthcare and helping create blue-collar jobs.
But those things are difficult problems with complex solutions so they choose to scream about M&Ms instead.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"How come Billy has two mommies?"
"I can't tell you or I'll lose me job, ask me again in 10 years..."
Re: (Score:2)
That should be the correct answer, teachers have no right to teach children things the parents haven't agreed to teach them or talk about another child's parents and their escapades, whether they are good or bad.
How come Billy's dad is in jail, how come Billy's mom is an addict, they are questions that teachers should redirect to the parents of the child asking.
Going deep into various aspects of sexuality with an 8 year old is very inappropriate unless you're a parent or doctor of said child, otherwise you'
Re: (Score:2)
Is this what happens when you teach leftist ideologies instead of math? You construct scenarios with 0 year olds that can speak and ask questions about lesbians?
Very low effort response.
As opposed to the rightist ideologies that say a single exposure to a gay person will irrevocably and instantly turn a child gay yet constant exposure to straight people has zero effect ever. Straight up ignore reality and insert whatever lies serve the purpose. Then again when their main inspiration is an ancient book written by sheep farmers who made shit up in their spare time what can you expect?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
> rightist ideologies that say a single exposure to a gay person will irrevocably and instantly turn a child gay
> Straight up ignore reality and insert whatever lies serve the purpose
Irony.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It sounds like you agree with the "Don't Say Gay Bill".
Nope, because I am a conservative who believes in limited government. There is no reason for the state government of Florida to be sticking its nose into an issue that can be handled by individual school districts, or even individual schools.
They want to limit teaching sexual orientation and gender identity from kindergarten to grade 3 or 5-9 year-olds.
If that's what you want, then talk to your school board, not your governor. This should be a local issue.
If you don't like it when lefties empower the government to push their ideology, then you should oppose righties doing it as well.
Re: Get Woke.. (Score:2)
In the spirit of the republicans you (1) agree there is an appropriate age and therefore an inappropriate age to discuss this and (2) you also seem to agree on the age itself.
When you rationalize issues instead of being told what to think through media talking points you'll see there is common ground.
Now go through the same rationalization of forced diversity quotes vs organic diversity.
Re: (Score:2)
In the spirit of the republicans you (1) agree there is an appropriate age and therefore an inappropriate age to discuss this and (2) you also seem to agree on the age itself.
Let's say I got my wish and the bill had been written in a way that it unambiguously only applied through grade 3. Chances are that Disney wouldn't have spoken out against it, none of this manufactured outrage would've happened, and LGBTQ+ adolescents still get to feel acknowledged as equally human at Florida public schools. Heck, it's entirely possible ol' "paycheck" would still be at the helm of Disney, since that whole "don't say gay" fiasco really didn't look good on him.
Politicians (yes I'm both-sidi
Re: Get Woke.. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, you've got your Vanguard and your Blackrock that own HUGE chunks of Disney, and they're ALL OVER the ESG shit. I have been getting emails from Vanguard bragging about their ESG funds and efforts over the last few months. So they're willing to lose money to push an agenda.... for a while, apparently.
More like "you snooze, you lose" (Score:5, Insightful)
It says right in TFS that Disney+ added 1.4 million subscribers in the USA. I'd expect that number to improve a bit as well, if Netflix manages to annoy too many of their subscribers with their forthcoming crackdown on password sharing. Their subscriber losses came from India, which is so distanced from US culture war politics as to make it completely a non-issue.
Ain't it a shame when those pesky facts get in the way of your anti-woke crusade?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
True, but they spent 22.1 billion and only profited 1.28 billion last quarter. To put it into perspective, the single movie Top Gun Maverick spent only 135 million and grossed a higher profit than Disney's entire online collection did that quarter.
Do you think that making shows for everyone would have earned more than just 1.4M subscribers? If you're gloating that they increased 1.4m subscribers out of a potential 10 million, or however many more people would subscribe without the virtue signaling, then I d
Re: More like "you snooze, you lose" (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Most people don't care about the "wokeness". Seeing two women in a relationship for approximately 1.5 seconds in Lightyear is not enough to trigger them. Having a sub-plot about the first openly lesbian president and the "don't ask, don't tell" law wasn't upsetting to most viewers.
It's just a vocal minority that review bombs shows whenever they see anyone who isn't white, male, and straight on the screen.
Re: (Score:2)
Your post is stupidly short-sighted.
Disney is spending for expansion at the moment. The question isn't about spending $20 today to make $1 win. It's spending $20 today making $1 win today, with a potential future earning of $x / year for decades.
This is literally how all businesses operate when they enter a new field by force. The fact that they a spending more than they are earning on their streaming business right now surprises precisely no one.
Your post is no different to those talking about how Tesla wa
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Go Broke.
Yup, exactly [imgur.com]. Anti "woke" (whatever that means) will always win [occupydemocrats.com].
Re: (Score:2)
My mom's far right spam, cons, frauds, and other garbage showing up in her inbox all have the right buzzwords: Patriot, pro-American, God and Country, Family, etc. She lost so much money on bogus investments from that scum. It's an easy way to prey on the elderly, and a way to get them to send in campaign dollars but I repeat myself.
Re: (Score:2)
Go Broke.
Careful. What if it's not the politically correct content? Maybe, all that Disney+, amazon, and Netflix need is another pandemic.
Do you want to incentivize that?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yep. Have you seen "The Proud Family" on Disney+? Blatant anti-white propaganda being shoved down our children's throats. Disgusting.
I hope they go bankrupt.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Wait, The Proud Family isn't anti-white. Are you smoking your old coffee grounds again?
Re:Get Woke.. (Score:5, Informative)
Wait, The Proud Family isn't anti-white.
Maybe but a clip [twitter.com] shows it's clearly against interracial relationships... as the tweet notes, did the KKK write this thing?
Also that clip is very distinctly anti-white, since they un-invite a white girl from a party just because a boy they like only dates white girls.
So even your primary claim there is suspect, they have at the very least a lot of very anti-white characters on the show.
Just play in your head what the reaction would be if that was a group of white girls complaining about a guy only dating black girls, then un-inviting their only black friend...
Far too many people these days seem utterly blind to racism that goes in ways deemed acceptable. No racism is acceptable.
Re: (Score:3)
That clip isn't about avoid interracial dating, it's a discussion amongst kids about the idea of interracial dating. Some are for it, some seem to be against it, and they're all talking about someone not in the conversation anyway. The show is not anti-white, but it may have characters in it that are. This is in the same way that All In The Family was not racist even though Archie Bunker was. Really, are the anti-woke people this super sensitive that the topic must not even be breached?
Re: (Score:2)
Go Broke.
Yeah, because the financial woes are due to not listening to a minority of troglodytes.
More rational theories and models (like fragmentation, lowered quality of products or expensive investments with low ROI) are to be ignored, Occam's Razor be damned. Screw logic and give me a tinfoil hat!
Re: Get Woke.. (Score:2)
Or it could be there are only so many literary ideas out there that can be rehashed for so long, plus many parents have to decide if they should keep Disney+ or put gas in the car. Guess which one of those gets the axe?
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, because the financial woes are due to not listening to a minority of troglodytes.
Actually, their financial woes are due to listening to a minority of troglodytes.
Just look at what they've done to the Star Wars and Marvel francizes.
Compare today's Disney products with their products from, say, 20+ years ago.
Disney used to be an entertainment company. During the last 15-somethign years, they have become a social-activism-delivered-through-entertainment company, and people don't like it. If they want to hear a sermon, they look for a preacher, they don't want to watch a Disney product for
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
TLJ was a disaster from start to end, it managed to fuck up Star Wars completely. TRoS was a half-assed attempt to save the smoking pile of ash that was left after TLJ.
I could write pages about why this last trilogy was horrible, but I really see no point in spending time doing so. There are plenty people who listed those reasons, and they write better than me.
But, hey, you liked it, good for you.
Re: (Score:2)
Occam's Razor: They gain money by selling products. I stopped buying any product at all from them when they started woke.
Why Disney is losing money?
Your conclusion: "fragmentation, low quality products, expensive investment with low ROI"
My conclusion: wokeness.
Re: (Score:2)
Occam's Razor: They gain money by selling products. I stopped buying any product at all from them when they started woke.
Oh yeah, your anecdotal evidence is representative of consumer behavior at large.
Why Disney is losing money?
Your conclusion: "fragmentation, low quality products, expensive investment with low ROI"
My conclusion: wokeness.
I can quantify up my conclusions with evidence. You, on the other hand, you can only regurgitate your feelings on the matter.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't support Disney in their push for "diversity and inclusiveness" in movies where they go out of the way to cast different people in roles that are traditionally held by another type of person.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Get Woke.. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Tons of people complained about it being too 'woke.'
But here it is, making tons of cash.
I know it is a catchy phrase because it rhymes and all, but it just doesn't hold any truth in reality. The world is a diverse place and entertainment - for many, many decades - did not reflect that at all.
Re: (Score:2)
So you are saying it's more profitable to kiss up to troglodytes, xenophobes, and religious zealots? It might be, but I haven't seen clear evidence either way. There's a lot of factors that affect that strategy.
Such as considering television to be "the Devil's Box"?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
So you are saying it's more profitable to kiss up to troglodytes, xenophobes, and religious zealots?
It works for Fox News and Chick-Fil-A. But they're something of the exception rather than the rule. A lot of businesses that bring nothing to the market besides their right-wing political ideology frequently discover a painfully non-partisan fact of capitalism: the corporate world is dog eat dog.
Like that coffee company [nasdaq.com] founded by people who believed Starbucks was too liberal. Turns out Wall St. doesn't care about your feelings or your politics.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It works for Fox News and Chick-Fil-A.
Chick-Fil-A is awesome. They have the nicest staff anywhere and great food.
For every dumbass that wants to knock them for whatever dumbass reason, there are like a million more who are very happy to go there.
Re: (Score:2)
Chick-Fil-A is awesome. They have the nicest staff anywhere and great food.
Notice you didn't say anything about their politics, and that's my point. Whether a business succeeds or fails depends on how well they provide goods and/or services that the public is willing to exchange their hard-earned money for. On the flipside of Chick-Fil-A, there's Apple, which presently has an openly gay man at the helm. That's also completely a non-issue, so long as they keep putting out products that sell.
We've even recently had an example with Twitter where a company's politics took a bit of
Re: (Score:2)
Because Chick-fil-A doesn't have politics. It's CEO had objectionable politics. There were better ways of handling this when everyone could see how it would backfire.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Wrong, and not just grammatically. Chick-Fil-A is privately held, and the family that owns it makes the decisions about how its finances are managed. Including large donations to the WinShape Foundation, something that sounds like it should make a shitty Windows program that allows you to use custom themes or something but is actually a "Christian" charity founded by the same family in 1984. The WinShape Foundation, btw, in turn works with and donates large sums to the National Christian Foundation in Ugand
Re: (Score:2)
The trick is to suck up just enough to the the loud and angry minority that they don't alienate the majority of their customers. Remember, the whole shit hit the fan for the utterly minor act of opposing a bill that most people disliked. If the Republicans are bitching that corporations shouldn't get involved in politics, then they're being hypocritical by encouraging churches to be vastly more partisan politically than any corporation is.
Re: (Score:2)
I think what he's saying is that it's not profitable to kiss up to the 5% religious nutjobs or the 5% woke nutjubs but instead ignore BOTH of them and make movies that the other 90% just want to see. You know, movies that don't cater to some sort of political agenda but instead entertain.
Re: (Score:2)
Then how about ignoring the loudmouths, on both ends off the deep end, for a change and instead try to make movies with some meaningful plots and interesting characters. You know, characters that have a personality rather than some checkbox ticking traits in a vain attempt to "appeal" to someone.
A black, gay, transgender person appeals as much as a white, straight man to me, if their story is interesting. I don't give a fuck who they fuck, unless that's part of the plot. And please don't cram it into the pl
Re: (Score:2)
maybe just don't "kiss up" to anyone and just focus on creating quality content?
Re:Get Woke.. (Score:4, Insightful)
BwAAhahahahaha. Haa haaa haaaaaa. *cough* HAAAA! ha haha ahaaahahaha. Hummm. Heh hehhh.
Shut the fuck up.
I got Woke (Score:2)
..At 5am this morning by an absolute maniac running down the street screaming and cursing his head off. I think he was on drugs. And I've been Woke ever scince. :-|
Re: (Score:2)
It is a thing; a thing that was made up to trigger the voters to send in cash.
Re:Get Woke.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Funny you mentioned Star Trek. TNG was the racially-neutral show. It struck a beautiful balance between "not enough" and "too much".
The Orville amazingly managed to revive this balance, and maintain it with amazing consistency.
Now...
[Start Trek Discovery] felt a little "woke" when I first started watching it
That's because it is. Usually, if you're watching a movie or TV show and its characters feel "woke", it's because they are. As a Star trek fan, Discovery felt like a cartoonish version, drawn with simple, too thick lines by a kid who is too obsessed with what people do in bed and has an issue with authority. Here's an analogy. Imagine those famous ancient Greek statues (e.g. Farnese Hercules), but instead being sculpted as it is, the author would have decided to make Hercule's penis a freakishly large one, say, hanging down to his knees, or even worse, fully erect, almost slamming over his chest. It would have been ridiculous, and almost unanimously rejected. Well, that's pretty much how Disney makes movies and TV series these days. They fixate on traits that simply don't require focus on, and they do it for the sake of doing it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps you should've read the summary more closely: Disney added subscribers in the USA.
Re:Get Woke.. (Score:5, Insightful)
For the umpteenth time, it's not that.
There were excellent movies and TV shows with and about (sexual or racial) minorities throughout the years, and nobody except a handful of extremists batted an eyelid. There were plenty of actors and actresses which were much appreciated without any problem, a great example is Star Trek: TNG which nailed it in terms of inclusion of all kinds. It is a perfect example of how you can successfully represent everyone.
incidental same-sex relationship
That's the problem, recently almost none of them can be considered "incidental". They're blatantly showed in one's face with no reason other than ticking some checkmarks to please a vocal crowd. Here's a very recent example, on-topic: Strange World, the 2022 animation movie.
"The legendary Clades are a family of explorers whose differences threaten to topple their latest and most crucial mission." - so far, so good. On IMDB, the top 5 displayed tags for this animation movie are: "gay child", "gay teenager", "dog", "lgbt", "cgi animation". I am not even making this up.
Is the movie about being gay and the struggles which come with it? Not at all. Is the conflict between father and son based on father's disapproval of son's sexual orientation? Nope (actually, it would have been a hell of a good plot, to be honest). Is the son's sexual orientation part of a major plot line? Nope. Is it important to movie's development in any way? Nope. It's shoved in everyone's face for no objective reason, and it's akin to whistling during a sermon.
And don't even get me started with the latest Star Wars trilogy. While it was amazing, back in the day, to see Xena making short work of baddies, or even recently, The Orville had Halston Sage playing as chief of security, despite being small and apparently frail. But they've come up with a smart reason for her being physically powerful, and it worked beautifully. Compare her character (Alara Kitan) to the (in)famous "Rey Skywalker", the perfect Mary Sue of all times, and differences are glaringly obvious.
Racially diverse cast is no problem. It was not a problem at least starting with the 1970s, and I'd argue the post-Woodstock Western world accepted racially diverse and sexually diverse people with very, very few exceptions. But there's a difference between gender- and race-neutrality and the ridiculous movement from recent years, where "thou must worship all minorities just because they are minorities". And Disney is a huge offender in that regard, with a long list of movies with shoehorned characters being diverse for the sake of being diverse, plot and common sense be damned.
So there you have it, a rather lengthy (for a Slashdot post) clarification.
Re:Get Woke.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually a racially diverse cast can be a problem when it is forced. For example you make a show about vikings and some of the cast is black, it is clearly inaccurate and will break suspension of disbelief.
Re: (Score:2)
https://scandinaviafacts.com/w... [scandinaviafacts.com]
Re: (Score:2)
More specifically: a small number of vikings were believed to have darker skin shade, as a result of normal inter-human relations at the time (including but not limited to traveling, slavery, prisoner exchanges, trade).
The article forces conclusions as well, and is biased, flat-out making things up at times.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
https://www.sacred-texts.com/n... [sacred-texts.com]
So, yeah, history rewritten in the vein of current times. Where have we seen that before?
Re: (Score:2)
If you speak Norwegian the author Bergsveinn Birgisson has written both fact and fiction about his own ancestor Geirmund Heljarskinn.
Re: (Score:2)
I do happen to know a few knowledgeable people from DK, NO and SWE, had a conversation with them today, and while they all agreed it is very likely that the Vikings (which are not the same as Norse, as you may well know) had people amongst them which were of various skin color, it would have been a fairly rare occurrence.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
There is great content out there with LGBTQ+ content though. Old classics, new stuff, and you can watch it without becoming gay. Funniest shit ever is "But I'm A Cheerleader!" Wait, what about Xena Warrior Princess, or Hercules? Clearly gay content there too...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
> Disney's streaming business continued to bleed cash, losing more than $1 billion during the three months
There had been a prediction that such would happen when they first entered the streaming market
See, I think the bigger issue is that Disney spent more time on the "quantity" part of the equation than the "quality" part. What Disney had that Netflix doesn't is a century of previously-paid-for content. Netflix *has* to spend a fortune to produce a deluge of content regularly, but Disney already had a cadence, with Disney Channel and direct-to-DVD sequels and spinoffs...if they just kept that going, maybe with one Marvel show and one Star Wars show a year, the draw to D+ could have been the back catalog
Re: (Score:2)
What content is controversial? Now Disney owns a lot of studios that aren't family oriented, they're a conglomerate, but the traditional family fare is still there.