News Christine McCarthy to step down from her role as Chief Financial Officer

[Sirwalterraleigh]

I don't really see how that addresses what I was saying, though.

I'm not arguing for Iger or against change. What I'm saying is that "anything and everything" approach to criticising Disney leads to threads going into strange places, including some politically motivated critiques that I'm not entirely sure everyone quite grasps but reflexively supports as part of this whole everything everywhere all at once pile on. Or maybe everyone is on the same page in that regard, who knows.

At any rate, at a certain point it's hard to see any logic or rationale to the criticisms if you are indeed interested in a better Disney. Discontent with pricing at the parks and the IP mandate blurs into barracking for the next Pixar film to flop and cheering on Wall Street investors punishing Disney for not being profitable enough. Within 24 hours, Christine McCarthy goes from a villain wielding the sword of cuts and fat shaming fans to another victim of Iger who had some good ideas. The topic of these particular posts involved a desire to bring back executives that fans complained about for years for creating the culture at the parks they're supposed to dislike. And, of course, at regular intervals we get memes and quips about inclusion and diversity mixed in with it all.

At a certain point, you just throw up your hands.

And to be clear: she’s still a villain.

Nothing changed. But the “underboss”…like Rasulo…and not the “Don” looks better when things aren’t good

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

I think DIS needs to rebrand with the lead entity being some NewCo name and DIS being subordinate to NewCo and lateral with the other business entities such as ABC, ESPN, etc.

The CEO of NewCo can then focus on leading NewCo rather than insisting on being the creative focal point of the entities associated with
Disney and the other entities being secondary.

If one looks at Tim Cook, he is the lead when it comes to the unveiling of a finished product but not the public face of the initiation phase.

Iger needs to stop trying to be a creative and focus on being a CEO of the entirety of NewCo. Leave the creativity to the creatives.

Like “meta”…who just happened to go that route when the FBI and Interpol disclosed they had been taking money from the GRU and “liberation fronts” to run campaign clicks in other countries?
Ok…at least Disney isn’t doing THAT

Not quite. We don’t like her because of her personality.

Essentially, she tries too hard to be likable, and the result is that she comes off as abrasive and fake.
Charisma On Command did a full breakdown of Brie’s multiple faux pas and how to avoid them.

I still dig it.

I’m on record. Gonna go buy a Nissan now

 

[MisterPenguin]

Not quite. We don’t like her because of her personality.

Essentially, she tries too hard to be likable, and the result is that she comes off as abrasive and fake.
Charisma On Command did a full breakdown of Brie’s multiple faux pas and how to avoid them.

She ain't getting flak because there's a few cringy interviews. There is no anti-cringe club taking offense at her because of not being likable enough... or in the right way?

"She tries too hard!!!!! That's the *only* reason we're spending all our free time tearing her down on the internet!!! She just needs to smile more... and in the right way.... <and stop speaking>. Wait, did we say that last part out loud?"​

She's getting flak from a totally different group who may be trying to hide their true nerdrage to save face from being called out for who they really are....

Samuel L. Jackson Stands by Brie Larson Against Toxic Marvel Fans: ‘Incel Dudes Who Hate Strong Women’ Won’t Destroy Her

Samuel L. Jackson says toxic Marvel fans will never destroy Brie Larson.

variety.com

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

She ain't getting flak because there's a few cringy interviews. There is no anti-cringe club taking offense at her because of not being likable enough... or in the right way?

"She tries too hard!!!!! That's the *only* reason we're spending all our free time tearing her down on the internet!!! She just needs to smile more... and in the right way.... <and stop speaking>. Wait, did we say that last part out loud?"​

She's getting flak from a totally different group who may be trying to hide their true nerdrage to save face from being called out for who they really are....

Samuel L. Jackson Stands by Brie Larson Against Toxic Marvel Fans: ‘Incel Dudes Who Hate Strong Women’ Won’t Destroy Her

Samuel L. Jackson says toxic Marvel fans will never destroy Brie Larson.

variety.com

It’s rare…but I totally agree here.
This a case of toxic fandom

Other cases?…not so much

 

[Tha Realest]

What I described is Blumhouse’s business model. Look over their list of releases - it’s overwhelmingly low-budget horror films, sometimes with one or two mid-level celebrities attached (Paranormal Activities, Purge, Ouija, Insidious, etc). Get Out absolutely fits this model - it just happened to be a great film (which is one of the points of the model - if you swing often enough, occasionally you hit a grand slam). Whiplash and BlacKKKlansman were very rare deviations from the formula.

You said “LEAST creatively risky” - not financially risky. You’re conflating the two. Releasing films by new or first time filmmakers that deal with deeper issues of race (in a horror context) or have extended segments where rocks speak with one another are creatively risky.

Pushing out filmmakers like Lord and Miller (creative risk takers) and replacing them midproduction with Ron Howard is the antithesis of creative risk.

 

[the_rich]

She ain't getting flak because there's a few cringy interviews. There is no anti-cringe club taking offense at her because of not being likable enough... or in the right way?

"She tries too hard!!!!! That's the *only* reason we're spending all our free time tearing her down on the internet!!! She just needs to smile more... and in the right way.... <and stop speaking>. Wait, did we say that last part out loud?"​

She's getting flak from a totally different group who may be trying to hide their true nerdrage to save face from being called out for who they really are....

Samuel L. Jackson Stands by Brie Larson Against Toxic Marvel Fans: ‘Incel Dudes Who Hate Strong Women’ Won’t Destroy Her

Samuel L. Jackson says toxic Marvel fans will never destroy Brie Larson.

variety.com

Yes , yes, a thousand times yes. This right here is exactly what it is. She doesn't fit into their idea of who she should be.

 

[flynnibus]

She ain't getting flak because there's a few cringy interviews.

 

[Tha Realest]

To be fair, her own social media stuff presents her weirdo, but I find it refreshing and endearing and appreciate the bonkers decision to take on her first acting role in a year or two (after her critical Oscar acclaim) by joining the Fast and Furious franchise.

 

[Tha Realest]

The DIS stock is dropping so fast even the OceanGate CEO is getting nervous

 

[Casper Gutman]

Ah, so a genre snob* and someone dismissing A24?

Makes me wonder what your idea of a true Scottsman would be.

Your idea of creative risk is the budgets?

The problem with studios like Disney and Universal and WB is these movies they're cranking out of their well-oiled cg and effects houses have to do over half a billion these days to be considered not a failure.

That's why they aren't taking creative risks. This was already a problem before COVID and it has, for quite some time, been an issue of these studio's own makings.

Their complete aversion to risk is what's causing a lot of their headaches.

A studio like Blumhouse can make what Elemental did in its opening weekend on anything they put out and be judged a financial success. They can put out 4-6 movies for the price that a company like Disney spends on one so if one of them manages to hit, the rest can straight-out flop (though most don't straight-out flop).

i think Blumhouse shows how it's possible to both run a smart business AND take creative risks.

Nearly all of Hollywood used to operate that way and it's what gives them the freedom to do things that don't have to be universally adored.

Concerns about the Chinese market? Heck, they don't care if most American's don't want to see their movies.

I can't say I enjoy even half what they put out but I can appreciate how something like Bodies, Bodies, Bodies (which I didn't like) took a huge left turn on the tired slasher/killer on the loose in an isolated environment trope.

For a studio like Blumhouse, existing IP for some of their stuff is simply part of that strategy unlike the "big" studios where it appears to be their only strategy.

I mean, our beloved auteur of the GOTG movies came up through the ranks of Troma which I'm sure is all un-creative garbage in your eyes, too, right?**

How do you reconcile that?

As for A24, I'm curious what "reliable formula" EEAAO, Pearl (I guess since it's kind-of-sort-of a prequel?), The Whale, and Men - all part of what they released last year (and all of which I saw in theaters) - followed.

Additionally, their release schedule for 2022 was 16 movies, btw, so I'm not sure what it takes for a studio to matter in size or scope in your eyes.

Your comments dismissing A24 alone, are enough for me to not take anything else you say in this conversation seriously.

*and Blumhouse's "entire model" is only horror if you dismiss the documentaries and non-horror fiction their success in horror makes it possible for them to produce.

**They'd probably wear your review like a badge of honor.

You’ve read A LOT into my response that wasn’t there. I’m in no way a “genre snob,” in fact quite the contrary - you won’t believe the schlock I’ll enjoy, and I’ll argue (and have argued here) that mainstream superhero comics, B-movies, and theme parks are legitimate art and should be considered as such. You’re way off base.

What seems to have set you off is my entirely accurate description of Blumhouses business model and even the slightest non-celebratory mention of A24. As I’ve said before, Blumhouse’s entire model is that if they release enough formulaic horror like Purge, Insidious, Ouija, and Paranormal Activity (full disclosure - I enjoyed the second Purge and some bits of the Insidious series, but on the whole am not a fan of those franchises) they’ll make money consistently and occasionally launch a surprise like Get Out. I said above that the major studios should probably diversify their output in the way you’re suggesting (you seem to have missed that), but low-budget horror is actually the one thing most of the studios are producing alongside tentpoles since it’s consistently profitable, so whatever lessons Blumhouse has to teach have likely already been learned.

As to A24, it is absolutely a very successful and often adventurous independent studio - but it IS an independent and not one of the majors, and I’m sure A24 itself wouldn’t dispute that. Many of the studios have independent arms, of course, and since Disney acquired it, their independent arm Searchlight has released The Favorite, Ready or Not (that low-budget horror again!), Jojo Rabbit, The Personal History of David Copperfield, Nomadland, The Eyes of Tammy Faye, The French Dispatch, Antlers, Nightmare Alley, Good Luck to You Leo Grande, The Banshees of Innershin, and The Menu. So, yeah, if we’re including independent studios and divisions, the idea that Disney is completely adverse to creative risk and adventure starts to ring more hollow. But we weren’t talking about the independents, we were talking about the majors.

 

[Trauma]

The DIS stock is dropping so fast even the OceanGate CEO is getting nervous

View attachment 725770

Market goes down - Disney stock goes down.

Market goes up - Disney stock goes down.

 

[flynnibus]

The DIS stock is dropping so fast even the OceanGate CEO is getting nervous

View attachment 725770

zOMG... it's almost to where it was... 3 weeks ago! And has moved a whopping $4 swing over the period. OH THE HUMANITY!

I don't know how people keep up with these 2-3% swings!

 

[Casper Gutman]

You said “LEAST creatively risky” - not financially risky. You’re conflating the two. Releasing films by new or first time filmmakers that deal with deeper issues of race (in a horror context) or have extended segments where rocks speak with one another are creatively risky.

Pushing out filmmakers like Lord and Miller (creative risk takers) and replacing them midproduction with Ron Howard is the antithesis of creative risk.

I’m not sure about the distinction you’re trying to draw between creative- and financial-risk taking - in the entertainment industry, the “risk” in creatively risky is that audiences will reject the product and you’ll lose money. A creatively adventurous $300 million dollar film is inherently more risky than a creatively adventurous $5 million dollar one. And while Get Out was great, it can be overstated just how risky giving a $4.5 million budget to one of the most critically acclaimed, hottest comedians of the moment really was (I believe he also had directorial experience from his show).

Also, I think we’re in danger of confusing “creative risk taking” with “being really, really good.” Lord and Miller are fantastic and Spider-Verse is unquestionably artistically creative, but I’m not sure Clone High, The Lego Movie, and 21 Jump Street are - they’re all just very, very well done.

 

[MisterPenguin]

zOMG... it's almost to where it was... 3 weeks ago! And has moved a whopping $4 swing over the period. OH THE HUMANITY!

I don't know how people keep up with these 2-3% swings!

Indeed. When it did pop up from $87 to $94, I don't remember anyone posting about that and crediting Iger for it...

 

[BaconPancakes]

Not quite. We don’t like her because of her personality.

Essentially, she tries too hard to be likable, and the result is that she comes off as abrasive and fake.
Charisma On Command did a full breakdown of Brie’s multiple faux pas and how to avoid them.

This video gives me incel vibes.

 

[the_rich]

This video gives me incel vibes.

Ding ding. They can't hide it.

 

[BaconPancakes]

Imagine if they made the same video for a man to be more "likeable". Ridiculous and cringe.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

You said “LEAST creatively risky” - not financially risky. You’re conflating the two. Releasing films by new or first time filmmakers that deal with deeper issues of race (in a horror context) or have extended segments where rocks speak with one another are creatively risky.

Pushing out filmmakers like Lord and Miller (creative risk takers) and replacing them midproduction with Ron Howard is the antithesis of creative risk.

To be fair…there is zero indication she has ANY clue what she’s doing. So there’s that too

Hated edwards and he was the only one who got it too

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

zOMG... it's almost to where it was... 3 weeks ago! And has moved a whopping $4 swing over the period. OH THE HUMANITY!

I don't know how people keep up with these 2-3% swings!

Indeed. When it did pop up from $87 to $94, I don't remember anyone posting about that and crediting Iger for it...

Yep…people love having the same amount of money they did in august, 2014

BAZINGA!! Let’s stay below the chapek line

 

[FettFan]

Imagine if they made the same video for a man to be more "likeable". Ridiculous and cringe.

They actually do. Here’s them using Shia Laboeuf as an example.


And one using Shark Tank.