GimpYancIent
Well-Known Member
Nah. You are entitled to your interpretation.You are one who was characterizing the speech as problematic because it was a “threat.”
Nah. You are entitled to your interpretation.You are one who was characterizing the speech as problematic because it was a “threat.”
Why lie when the post is still right there for all to see?Nah. You are entitled to your interpretation.
BC made his statement as a threat. Regardless of how anyone views BI, BI is more tactful in his presentation and understands diplospeak.
They do realize it, and they don't care. Actually caring about fiscal responsibility goes out the window when it's your guy.And it costs both parties an incredible amount of (wasted) money. Whether they realize it or not, FL taxpayers are paying for this hissy fit from their govenor.
Is Chapek's supposed threat in reference to the statement I quoted above? Or is another statement meant?Here, as a reminder, is Disney's statement:
Florida’s HB 1557, also known as the ‘Don’t Say Gay’ bill, should never have passed and should never have been signed into law. Our goal as a company is for this law to be repealed by the legislature or struck down in the courts, and we remain committed to supporting the national and state organizations working to achieve that. We are dedicated to standing up for the rights and safety of LGBTQ+ members of the Disney family, as well as the LGBTQ+ community in Florida and across the country.
It's not the most eloquent of compositions, to be sure, but neither is it "useless noise". I'm not sure how else the company could have expressed itself without prevaricating, which, to my mind, would have been worse.
That is the "threat."Is Chapek's supposed threat in reference to the statement I quoted above? Or is another statement meant?
Oh. I really thought something else must be meant.That is the "threat."
No lie. You do like to throw that word around. Yes, my post is there for all to see and everyone, you included, are entitled to interpret what you want. BC's presentation could have been done in one sentence, been nonabrasive and moved on. That is not how it was presented, not what happened, and a lot of unnecessary turbulence has occurred. What happened / happened, no changing history just now adapt to the present and the future that is being crafted as we speak.Why lie when the post is still right there for all to see?
You’re complaining about it being two sentences too long? Which parts are overly abrasive? And no, what happened does not have to be accepted by anyone as the final word on what happened. What has happened absolutely can be changed otherwise a whole bunch of laws now considered unjust would still be enforced.No lie. You do like to throw that word around. Yes, my post is there for all to see and everyone, you included, are entitled to interpret what you want. BC's presentation could have been done in one sentence, been nonabrasive and moved on. That is not how it was presented, not what happened, and a lot of unnecessary turbulence has occurred. What happened / happened, no changing history just now adapt to the present and the future that is being crafted as we speak.
The statement was from the Disney Company, not Chapek personally. None of us know how directly he shaped the wording.No lie. You do like to throw that word around. Yes, my post is there for all to see and everyone, you included, are entitled to interpret what you want. BC's presentation could have been done in one sentence, been nonabrasive and moved on. That is not how it was presented, not what happened, and a lot of unnecessary turbulence has occurred. What happened / happened, no changing history just now adapt to the present and the future that is being crafted as we speak.
I think it was the flip flop BC did that was a problem. BC mistakenly initially wanted to focus on the business instead of more important work of inclusion. Then he corrected himself and made it clear that the company was going to use its power to change the law.No lie. You do like to throw that word around. Yes, my post is there for all to see and everyone, you included, are entitled to interpret what you want. BC's presentation could have been done in one sentence, been nonabrasive and moved on. That is not how it was presented, not what happened, and a lot of unnecessary turbulence has occurred. What happened / happened, no changing history just now adapt to the present and the future that is being crafted as we speak.
I fail to understand how this applies to my post in any way. Even if Chapek completely botched the delivery of his statements how is that an attack against the state? I assume you just wanted to post this meme and picked my post which is fine. I wasn’t talking about whether Chapek was smart or elegant or charismatic as a speaker and I never suggested he did a good job getting his point across. I specifically said I thought the delivery was botched from the start. That still doesn’t make what he said an attack against the state.You really don't get it. People need to learn from the great speakers instead of opening mouth and inserting foot. How something is presented is very often more important than what is presented.
View attachment 693126
I don’t think you have an agenda. That wasn’t directed at you and I don’t think there’s anything wrong with us disagreeing on this topic. There are many things we agree on, doesn’t have to 100%. We can agree to disagree on how much of a conclusion can be drawn by a few films over a very limited period. You are assuming the only reason Disney animated features under performed was this conflict with DeSantis but I think it’s hard to place all of the blame on that. I don’t disagree they didn‘t have their best year, but other Disney movies did fine. If it’s a boycott that’s causing the decline are people really splitting hairs and only boycotting animated films? That to me seems like a stretch. We will see as time goes on.
I go with the simpler explanation that they were just average films, but it’s too soon to know either way.Oh don't get.me wrong. I don't think it was the conflict with Desantis that caused the animated films to severely underperform. I think it is reasons of similar political ideologies to the one that happens to be with Desantis too.
I appreciate and enjoy the respectful conversation.
I have never seen such an average Disney film do so poorly. Like Mars Needs Moms poorly with Strange World. Them being meh films did not help.I go with the simpler explanation that they were just average films, but it’s too soon to know either way.
I have never seen such an average Disney film do so poorly. Like Mars Needs Moms poorly with Strange World. Them being meh films did not help.
And as good as Minions: Rise of Gru was, it was not exactly Citizen Kane. So there are direct comparisons.
It was teased and marketed early on. After political concerns and the character traits and content within the movie came.to.limeligjt it suddenly ceased completely.I haven't seen Strange World, but I think part of the problem with it was that it had almost no marketing. I'd never even heard of it until a week before it was released when I finally saw one ad somewhere, and I never saw another.
Lightyear seemed to have more marketing.
Going off memory here, but it is community development districts that require unanimous approval. Without checking, the state run districts may be able to happen without that level of approval. I’m doubtful even something like the North Broward Health District would have ever achieved that high bar.
why would a company suddenly stop marketing a movie that was their big Thanksgiving and Christmas time release?
People take kids to movies Thanksgiving and Christmas time and look to what they can go see.
So Puss' n' Boots magically changed the holiday game when it cameout a few weeks later? Again, direct evidence to the contrary. Your post is not true.That hasn't been the case since 2019.
Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.