News The Walt Disney Company Board of Directors Extends Robert A. Iger’s Contract as CEO Through 2026

[Trauma]

Why d

I think I might need someone to explain your explanation!
How is it blaming the audience if I say that the audience changed?
And I've said pretty clearly that Iger is responsible to find customers.

I guess I do believe that toxic fans can take the fun out of things a bit. But I'm not sure that would equate to blaming them for Disney's failures. Seems like navigating that is part of the business, and if they can't do it well, they're going to have a much smaller business. But Disney has to decide who they want to sell entertainment to. I've been saying for a while now that pleasing everybody isn't a viable option.

Why do you keep saying this freaking nonsense.

Who was Mario catering to?

Top Gun Maverick?

Avatar?

How about you just make a fun freaking movie that doesn’t cater to anyone accept people who enjoy movies ?

 

[_caleb]

Step one in any correction is 'acknowledging the problem'. Here you have the CEO of a mega conglomerate acknowledging their past product had misses and specifically calls out the need to focus on entertaining before making statements. That is significant vs simply being vague.

Ok.

I was responding to your comment made - not your beliefs on the whole topic. Iger spoke about the product - you spoke about the audience. That's the difference.. he chose to address what they output.. you chose to address how people recieved things. That's the difference. One took ownership, the other blames the reception.

Ok. This is helpful. I suppose I do "blame" (still not sure about that word) some folks for spreading misinformation about Disney products, like what's in a film or what some underlying agenda might have been. But in cases like this, the blame would be on Disney, for not countering that misinformation.

Am I wrong to focus on the audience rather than focus more on the product? Maybe. But I'm a fan of the product (well, some of them, anyway), and of the fandoms, but I'm not a fan of the CEO or the Company. So I'm looking at it from that perspective. I think Bob Iger would do well to do the same.

 

[_caleb]

Why d

Why do you keep saying this freaking nonsense.

Who was Mario catering to?

Top Gun Maverick?

Avatar?

How about you just make a fun freaking movie that doesn’t cater to anyone accept people who enjoy movies ?

You seem upset (or maybe frustrated), so I imagine you wouldn't like my response.

 

[Disney Analyst]

Okay so Disney made good on the promise to return a dividend.

Now what’s next?

 

[Vegas Disney Fan]

I think I might need someone to explain your explanation!
How is it blaming the audience if I say that the audience changed?
And I've said pretty clearly that Iger is responsible to find customers.

I think this is the real question, is Disneys audience really changing?

I’d argue no, the public who went to movies in 2019, that resulted in 7 Disney movies making over a billion dollars each, are the exact same public today and they aren’t going to see the new Disney movies made for a “changing audience”.

Disney has changed for an audience that doesn't exist, the audience has remained the same, and they don't like the movies Disney is making for their imaginary "changed" audience.

 

[Trauma]

You seem upset (or maybe frustrated), so I imagine you wouldn't like my response.

I’m frustrated because you keep saying the same thing over and over without giving any context.

Please explain away why Disney needs to do anything but make good movies ?

 

[JoeCamel]

Okay so Disney made good on the promise to return a dividend.

Now what’s next?

Must be a price bump, that costs 549M each time it's paid

 

[GimpYancIent]

I think this is the real question, is Disneys audience really changing?

I’d argue no, the public who went to movies in 2019, that resulted in 7 Disney movies making over a billion dollars each, are the exact same public today and they aren’t going to see the new Disney movies made for a “changing audience”.

Disney has changed for an audience that doesn't exist, the audience has remained the same, and they don't like the movies Disney is making for their imaginary "changed" audience.

True. The audiences have demonstrated with the investment of their time and money (or lack thereof) that regardless of age or any other dynamic that what Disney is making and putting out for the "changing audience" is not what the real audiences want. The perceived "changes" that Disney powers that be claim are happening, simply put, are changes in their imaginations not reality.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

I think I might need someone to explain your explanation!
How is it blaming the audience if I say that the audience changed?
And I've said pretty clearly that Iger is responsible to find customers.

I guess I do believe that toxic fans can take the fun out of things a bit. But I'm not sure that would equate to blaming them for Disney's failures. Seems like navigating that is part of the business, and if they can't do it well, they're going to have a much smaller business. But Disney has to decide who they want to sell entertainment to. I've been saying for a while now that pleasing everybody isn't a viable option.

It’s this part…

that a certain subset of the audience thinks Disney has some big agenda and it's hurting the brand.

…when you’re flopping Tentpole left and right…

Then this isn’t true. They crashed like…6?!?….this year?


The toxic don’t have that kinda power

 

[flynnibus]

I wasn't trying to say that any one person believed this, I was asking if this statement was giving you what it sounds to me like you (and others) have been wanting.

I want to be entertained - that's the sole metric of why I will invest in a film or not (ok, some I will watch just to be in the know for some other continuity needed). So when Iger acknowledges that shortcoming and thinks it should be a priority, I will say "yes, its what I've been wanting" -- because I want films/projects that are entertaining. That's not a hard 1:1 connection to make.

I also like Films/projects that are more than just popcorn fanfare too... but if you have one without the other... you're going to have a hard time pulling me in. So this is why I really care less about "well this film is important for promoting... " whatever arguments. It's not what I track, and its pretty unlikely to make me invest or sit through a film. If it's there and great along with the film actually being a great film.. fantastic!

Things that break down barriers - I'm all for. But the thing to celebrate is the freedom that enables... not purely the act itself. Meaning... I care more that whatever creative choice someone makes is doable... then I celebrate them just for making a statement by doing it. A great example of that is the gratuitous shoots that were common in many early 80s films.. and has been the trend on a ton of HBO projects in years. It's just forced and overdone that "ok, here we get the one mandatory shot..." that it basically becomes it's own thing instead of just being a great part of the film.

So that's why I don't care for changes done in films -just- to promote something or make a statement.. I just want to soak in and enjoy the result.. not get tied up in the explicit action taken or why. I'm a consumer... not a film historian.

 

[Lilofan]

I think this is the real question, is Disneys audience really changing?

I’d argue no, the public who went to movies in 2019, that resulted in 7 Disney movies making over a billion dollars each, are the exact same public today and they aren’t going to see the new Disney movies made for a “changing audience”.

Disney has changed for an audience that doesn't exist, the audience has remained the same, and they don't like the movies Disney is making for their imaginary "changed" audience.

Maybe I'm one of the few but it's been years since I set foot in a movie theatre. I wait until the movie comes out on Netflix and enjoy the movie in the comfort of my home.

 

[Trauma]

I want to be entertained - that's the sole metric of why I will invest in a film or not (ok, some I will watch just to be in the know for some other continuity needed). So when Iger acknowledges that shortcoming and thinks it should be a priority, I will say "yes, its what I've been wanting" -- because I want films/projects that are entertaining. That's not a hard 1:1 connection to make.

I also like Films/projects that are more than just popcorn fanfare too... but if you have one without the other... you're going to have a hard time pulling me in. So this is why I really care less about "well this film is important for promoting... " whatever arguments. It's not what I track, and its pretty unlikely to make me invest or sit through a film. If it's there and great along with the film actually being a great film.. fantastic!

Things that break down barriers - I'm all for. But the thing to celebrate is the freedom that enables... not purely the act itself. Meaning... I care more that whatever creative choice someone makes is doable... then I celebrate them just for making a statement by doing it. A great example of that is the gratuitous shoots that were common in many early 80s films.. and has been the trend on a ton of HBO projects in years. It's just forced and overdone that "ok, here we get the one mandatory shot..." that it basically becomes it's own thing instead of just being a great part of the film.

So that's why I don't care for changes done in films -just- to promote something or make a statement.. I just want to soak in and enjoy the result.. not get tied up in the explicit action taken or why. I'm a consumer... not a film historian.

What is this forum coming to that I find myself agreeing with Flynn.

Well said.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Top Gun Maverick?

How about you just make a fun freaking movie that doesn’t cater to anyone accept people who enjoy movies ?

Maverick catered to ME…and it was glorious.

Hell it wasn’t just a sequel…it was really a reboot/remake. The immaculate Jenny Connelly aside…that’s what it was.

But why it hit so deep is it was modernized without HATING the 1986 audience. And that’s such a simple thing to do. Stop hating everyone and everything and that’s who Disney was employing…hopefully they’re all gone now and they can get back to business.

You know…the two movies I wanted sequels more than any were always top gun and return of the Jedi

And we got reboots for both. One I’ll love forever…the other looks more and more like creative malfeasance by the day

Paramount 1
Disney -1

 

[Tom P.]

Maverick catered to ME…and it was glorious.

Hell it wasn’t just a sequel…it was really a reboot/remake. The immaculate Jenny Connelly aside…that’s what it was.

But why it hit so deep is it was modernized without HATING the 1986 audience. And that’s such a simple thing to do. Stop hating everyone and everything and that’s who Disney was employing…hopefully they’re all gone now and they can get back to business.

You know…the two movies I wanted sequels more than any were always top gun and return of the Jedi

And we got reboots for both. One I’ll love forever…the other looks more and more like creative malfeasance by the day

Paramount 1
Disney 0

It's not a movie, but Paramount also managed to knock it out of the park with Star Trek: Picard season 3, which found a way to do a modern take on Star Trek that still catered to those of us who grew up on Next Generation in the 80's and 90's. It really is possible.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

I want to be entertained - that's the sole metric of why I will invest in a film or not (ok, some I will watch just to be in the know for some other continuity needed). So when Iger acknowledges that shortcoming and thinks it should be a priority, I will say "yes, its what I've been wanting" -- because I want films/projects that are entertaining. That's not a hard 1:1 connection to make.

I also like Films/projects that are more than just popcorn fanfare too... but if you have one without the other... you're going to have a hard time pulling me in. So this is why I really care less about "well this film is important for promoting... " whatever arguments. It's not what I track, and its pretty unlikely to make me invest or sit through a film. If it's there and great along with the film actually being a great film.. fantastic!

Things that break down barriers - I'm all for. But the thing to celebrate is the freedom that enables... not purely the act itself. Meaning... I care more that whatever creative choice someone makes is doable... then I celebrate them just for making a statement by doing it. A great example of that is the gratuitous shoots that were common in many early 80s films.. and has been the trend on a ton of HBO projects in years. It's just forced and overdone that "ok, here we get the one mandatory shot..." that it basically becomes it's own thing instead of just being a great part of the film.

So that's why I don't care for changes done in films -just- to promote something or make a statement.. I just want to soak in and enjoy the result.. not get tied up in the explicit action taken or why. I'm a consumer... not a film historian.

One thing I think @_caleb is missing is that it's not just audiences PERCEIVING a social-political agenda in diverse content, but that Disney has explicitly stated that the content has a social-political agenda. It's not a phantom or a boogeyman or a YouTube conspiracy. Disney creators, talent, and executives have made public and private (leaked) statements for the reasons behind certain creative decisions.

 

[Tom P.]

One thing I think @_caleb is missing is that it's not just audiences PERCEIVING a social-political agenda in diverse content, but that Disney has explicitly stated that the content has a social-political agenda. It's not a phantom or a boogeyman or a YouTube conspiracy. Disney creators, talent, and executives have made public and private (leaked) statements for the reasons behind certain creative decisions.

Agreed. I mean, Disney has explicitly stated the agenda behind their creative decisions, and then the Disney CEO has explicitly stated that they made a mistake and need to focus on entertainment before messaging. And yet folks here act like this is some rightwing conspiracy garbage. These are the things Disney themselves has said.

 

[Vegas Disney Fan]

Maybe I'm one of the few but it's been years since I set foot in a movie theatre. I wait until the movie comes out on Netflix and enjoy the movie in the comfort of my home.

I’m the same, with the exception of a few “must see” films I don’t go to theaters much anymore, but that’s a completely separate issue from making movies for a new audience (that I’d argue doesn’t exist).

If we were talking about lowering budgets (because people are waiting for streaming), or making fewer movies every year (because people aren’t going to the theater as much), I’d be in complete agreement, but the argument is Disney is intentionally making movies to appeal to a new audience. I just can’t figure out who that new audience is, and the box office numbers seem to confirm they don’t exist.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

It's not a movie, but Paramount also managed to knock it out of the park with Star Trek: Picard season 3, which found a way to do a modern take on Star Trek that still catered to those of us who grew up on Next Generation in the 80's and 90's. It really is possible.

Well now you tiptoed into my wheelhouse

Next generation is simply one of the best written and acted shows in history…it’s 150 hours of masterpiece

You want to talk TNG, ds9, B5 or BSG?
…meet me at the bar and I’ll buy


But…I think the hype over Picard 3 was too much. It was better than the awful first seasons…the cameos were outstanding…but I still think it was just trying to put the train wreck on the tracks again


But isn’t it amazing that the most common talking point was fans comping it to the mistakes of Disney Star Wars?

Ironic, huh?

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Agreed. I mean, Disney has explicitly stated the agenda behind their creative decisions, and then the Disney CEO has explicitly stated that they made a mistake and need to focus on entertainment before messaging. And yet folks here act like this is some rightwing conspiracy garbage. These are the things Disney themselves has said.

There seems to be three different arguments.

1. Disney isn't pushing a culture war.

2. Disney is pushing a culture war and that's good for business, while all their recent failures can be blamed on other factors.

3. Disney is pushing a culture war and it's bad for business but they should still do it anyways to defeat the forces of evil and make the world a better place.

The first two are just clearly, demonstrably false. But most people seem to be clinging to #1. I can at least respect the #3 people for taking a coherent position even if I disagree with it.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

One thing I think @_caleb is missing is that it's not just audiences PERCEIVING a social-political agenda in diverse content, but that Disney has explicitly stated that the content has a social-political agenda. It's not a phantom or a boogeyman or a YouTube conspiracy. Disney creators, talent, and executives have made public and private (leaked) statements for the reasons behind certain creative decisions.

They have done unnecessary crap…attached…that cause unnecessary crap responses (also attached)