Disney (and others) at the Box Office - Current State of Affairs

[Tha Realest]

I wasn't attributing them to you. They were used by another poster in the exchange that you yourself joined, seemingly in support of what he was saying.

Can you answer the question?

Chi84 started the exchange by writing, “Are they pushing an agenda or just reflecting the real world? It seems to me they’re doing the latter.”

The latter is the very basis the Disney executive used for the inclusionary efforts.

I’m not interested in weighing into the pros and cons of this, or letting you ascribe to me words of others. There’s various reasons for not taking this conversation down that road. But let’s be intellectually honest and acknowledge such a policy exists.

 

[Chi84]

Chi84 started the exchange by writing, “Are they pushing an agenda or just reflecting the real world? It seems to me they’re doing the latter.”

The latter is the very basis the Disney executive used for the inclusionary efforts.

I’m not interested in weighing into the pros and cons of this, or letting you ascribe to me words of others. There’s various reasons for not taking this conversation down that road. But let’s be intellectually honest and acknowledge such a policy exists.

I don’t think there’s a single person on this site who isn’t aware that Disney has a policy to be inclusive. They’ve stated it many times and I think it’s one of their core concepts.

I didn’t start the exchange, though. I was replying to another poster who said Disney was willing to take less money to push a “real world agenda.” My question was whether they were instead trying to reflect the real world.

 

[LittleBuford]

I’m not interested in weighing into the pros and cons of this, or letting you ascribe to me words of others. There’s various reasons for not taking this conversation down that road. But let’s be intellectually honest and acknowledge such a policy exists.

Oh, for good goodness' sake. You responded to a question I put to someone else. The words were his, and I never implied otherwise. I'm not into playing games, so time for me to move on from this particular exchange.

 

[Dranth]

how can you spot that… by your own admission you would never watch any Disney content… any opinions you have about what is in such content can automatically be dismissed

He spots it the same way that most of them do, by being told by other people who also haven't seen it that it contains things that either aren't even there or are minor but get blown way out of proportion.

 

[Casper Gutman]

Did you not read my last paragraph?



My opinion is based solely on data like Nielsen ratings and box office results.



I don't know anyone who would be upset that a girl in a movie is Pakistani. And if I did meet such a person, I wouldn't want to hang around them very long.

But I do know a lot of people, myself included, who can spot forced box checking initiatives from 20 feet away. It's feels fake and cringey. Make the Ms. Marvel character fabulous in her own right, and have her ethnicity be a bullet point much further down on the list of character angles. Quite frankly, as a gay man I find female characters far more engaging than males, and even I had no interest in The Marvels. Meanwhile, my Blu-Ray collection is full of female movies like All About Eve, Auntie Mame, The Women, Valley of the Dolls, The Help, etc. But The Marvels? I had no interest, it looks cringey and dumb.

That was Marvel's mistake. They just made a movie that very few people want to see. And they spent $275 Million to make it.

The idea that Ms Marvel is “forced” is completely incorrect, but you’ve never seen any media featuring the character and have said some truly nasty things about the actress. It’s Marvels best reviewed program by far (“just make good stuff”) based on a popular comic character who is more prominent then figures like Bucky or Vision or Shang-Chi and has appeared in leading roles in video games and other media. It is a prime example of what critics claim to want - the identity material (her heritage and gender) aren’t forced or phony as in something like Ghostbusters 3, but are absolutely fundamental and organic to the story being told.

It’s good content in which the diversity isn’t forced or cringey. And yet it doesn’t seem to be what posters here want, for some reason.

 

[DKampy]

The idea that Ms Marvel is “forced” is completely incorrect, but you’ve never seen any media featuring the character and have said some truly nasty things about the actress. It’s Marvels best reviewed program by far (“just make good stuff”) based on a popular comic character who is more prominent then figures like Bucky or Vision or Shang-Chi and has appeared in leading roles in video games and other media. It is a prime example of what critics claim to want - the identity material (her heritage and gender) aren’t forced or phony as in something like Ghostbusters 3, but absolutely fundamental and organic to the story being told.

Without a single example, the idea that Ms Marvel is forced seems based on nothing but the characters race and gender, which is an incredibly distressing assumption.

Could not agree more… he is showing his ignorance of speaking about Ms. Marvel while displaying he knows nothing of the character

 

[Casper Gutman]

Chi84 started the exchange by writing, “Are they pushing an agenda or just reflecting the real world? It seems to me they’re doing the latter.”

The latter is the very basis the Disney executive used for the inclusionary efforts.

I’m not interested in weighing into the pros and cons of this, or letting you ascribe to me words of others. There’s various reasons for not taking this conversation down that road. But let’s be intellectually honest and acknowledge such a policy exists.

Maybe I misunderstand, but since the DEI initiative that has caused such outrage includes women in the “underrepresented” group, isn’t it in fact trying to make media look like the audience? The “underrepresented” groups mentioned (which includes military vets) make up well over 50% of the potential audience, domestic or international, significantly exceeding Disney’s target.

 

[AdventureHasAName]

Do you mean they aren’t making films that are getting people into theaters? We know this lol. That’s why the thread exists.

So you're asserting the ticket-purchasing movie-going public does not reflect the real world? Because you said they were reflecting the real world, but you concede that we all know the movie-going public isn't buying tickets.

 

[Chi84]

So you're asserting the ticket-purchasing movie-going public does not reflect the real world? Because you said they were reflecting the real world, but you concede that we all know the movie-going public isn't buying tickets.

No, I think we're misunderstanding each other. I said the movies are reflecting the real world, meaning that the people shown in the movies are looking like what we see reflected in general populations.

What you said is that the movies don't "reflect" the ticket purchasing movie-going public. I assumed you meant that the movies aren't "attracting" the ticket-purchasing movie-going public.

I don't think you mean that the people buying tickets will do so only if the people on screen "reflect" them, meaning look and act like they do. That would be a pretty parochial viewpoint.

 

[Tha Realest]

Maybe I misunderstand, but since the DEI initiative that has caused such outrage includes women in the “underrepresented” group, isn’t it in fact trying to make media look like the audience? The “underrepresented” groups mentioned (which includes military vets) make up well over 50% of the potential audience, domestic or international, significantly exceeding Disney’s target.

I dont know if women were included within that definition, or if it was just racial minorities and LQBT identifiers/groups. My only point in bringing this up is the notion or suggestion seemingly advanced by some that no such policy exists, or baiting other users into arguing its merits.

I don’t have a problem with that policy, tbh. One of the best MCU films was Black Panther because it was so clearly a well made film and unified production from top to bottom, that also happened to check every conceivable “box” imaginable.

 

[Chi84]

I dont know if women were included within that definition, or if it was just racial minorities and LQBT identifiers/groups. My only point in bringing this up is the notion or suggestion seemingly advanced by some that no such policy exists, or baiting other users into arguing its merits.

I don’t have a problem with that policy, tbh. One of the best MCU films was Black Panther because it was so clearly a well made film and unified production from top to bottom, that also happened to check every conceivable “box” imaginable.

Maybe find the policy and post it. I would be surprised if it was that narrow.

 

[Tha Realest]

Maybe find the policy and post it. I would be surprised if it was that narrow.

I don’t think that would pass moderator review. People can find it if they want.

 

[BuddyThomas]

I wasn't attributing them to you. They were used by another poster in the exchange that you yourself joined, seemingly in support of what he was saying.

Can you answer the question?

They will never answer the question but instead tiptoe around it. I answered the question myself a few pages back but Mother decided to delete it.

 

[BuddyThomas]

So you're asserting the ticket-purchasing movie-going public does not reflect the real world? Because you said they were reflecting the real world, but you concede that we all know the movie-going public isn't buying tickets.

I am part of the movie going public and I’m buying tickets.

 

[Chi84]

I don’t think that would pass moderator review. People can find it if they want.

Are you talking about Reimagine Tomorrow? That includes women, veterans, people with disabilities, etc.

 

[LittleBuford]

Maybe find the policy and post it. I would be surprised if it was that narrow.

I believe this is what he’s referring to:



I’m a bit confused by the tweet’s framing of her words, which don’t refer to race and only mention 50% in relation to tears (which also puzzled me). Perhaps there’s more footage I’m unaware of.

 

[Casper Gutman]

I dont know if women were included within that definition, or if it was just racial minorities and LQBT identifiers/groups. My only point in bringing this up is the notion or suggestion seemingly advanced by some that no such policy exists, or baiting other users into arguing its merits.

I don’t have a problem with that policy, tbh. One of the best MCU films was Black Panther because it was so clearly a well made film and unified production from top to bottom, that also happened to check every conceivable “box” imaginable.

It includes women, military veterans, and the differently abled, among many other groups. It was another thing distorted and taken out of context by folks who dislike Disney. What’s controversial isn’t that the policy exists - it does, and Disney isn’t shy about it - but whether it affects the quality of content. That’s what people keep asking for examples of.

 

[Chi84]

I believe this is what he’s referring to:



I’m a bit confused by the tweet’s framing of her words, which don’t refer to race and only mention 50% in relation to tears (which made no sense to me). Perhaps there’s more footage I’m unaware of.

I thought he said a Disney policy. Employees come and go and don’t always correctly state an employer’s policies. This I know for a fact lol.

 

[Casper Gutman]

And by the way, as a comic reader, I’ll add that regardless of the inclusivity push, Ms Marvel was perhaps the most logical character to receive focus after the original Avengers, and in terms of comic popularity and prominence her show is more logical then WandaVision, Moon Knight, Hawkeye (or Black Widow or Shang-Chi - or even The Guardians pre-MCU - in film).

 

[LittleBuford]

I thought he said a Disney policy. Employees come and go and don’t always correctly state an employer’s policies. This I know for a fact lol.

The various clips leaked from the meeting were held up by a number of outlets and commentators as evidence of an official Disney “agenda” (the word needs little explanation in the context of this debate).

As a gay man to whom Disney’s stories and characters still appear overwhelmingly straight (and can anyone really deny that they are?), I can only laugh and despair at the paranoia and alarmism.