Disney General - The saddest fandom on Earth

  • Thread starter Thread starter KO 864
  • Start date Start date
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account

Which is Better

  • Chicken Little

    Votes: 433 27.4%
  • Hunchback 2

    Votes: 57 3.6%
  • A slow death

    Votes: 1,088 68.9%

  • Total voters
    1,578
I don't know, it's very much a masculine maturing story.

It's a story about a violent destructive boy who gets adoptive sisters that show him a value of family. To hold on what family gives to him, he has to learns control himself and use his power for protection.
But it's also about those sisters and their personal relationship. The most emotional part of the entire movie (the hammock scene) focuses on them and I think Stitch is only like, in the background or something.
 
The question is will this one-time dividend work?
1701461280768.png 1701461330981.png 1701461404198.png
The same day activist investor Nelson Peltz announced he was launching a proxy campaign to get seats on Disney’s board of directors, the company adopted amended bylaws covering nominations of directors by outside parties.

Meanwhile, in a bid to win shareholder favor amid the brewing proxy battle, Disney separately Thursday announced a cash dividend of $0.30 per share, payable Jan. 10, 2024, to shareholders of record at the close of business on Dec. 11, 2023. It’s the company’s first dividend payments to investors in more than three years, after Disney suspended them during the COVID pandemic.

On Nov. 30, Disney’s board “amended and restated” the company’s bylaws, which became effective as of Thursday, the company said in an SEC filing Thursday.
Among other things, the amendments “enhance the procedural mechanics and disclosure requirements relating to business proposals submitted and director nominations made by stockholders,” Disney said in the filing. That includes requiring “certain additional background information, disclosures and representations regarding any proposing stockholders, any proposed director nominees and business and any other persons related to a stockholder’s solicitation of proxies” and that “any notice of director nomination be accompanied by all written questionnaires required of the company’s directors completed and signed by any proposed director nominees.”

In addition, Disney’s revised bylaws “address recently adopted amendments to Rule 14a-19 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, by requiring that any person soliciting proxies in support of a director nominee other than the board’s nominees provide a representation that such person will comply with Rule 14a-19 and deliver reasonable evidence to the company that the Rule 14a-19 requirements have been met,” Disney said.

The SEC’s Rule 14a-19, which went into effect for shareholder meetings involving contested director elections held after Aug. 31, 2022, establish new notice and filing requirements for all soliciting parties, as well as formatting and presentation requirements for universal proxy cards. In addition, the rules require shareholders presenting their own director candidates in the contest to solicit holders of a minimum of 67% of the voting power of shares entitled to vote in the election.

Disney’s new bylaws also require that “any person directly or indirectly soliciting proxies using its own proxy card use a proxy card color other than white.”

The announced intention by Peltz’s Trian Fund Management to launch a proxy fight to get its directors on the board comes a day after Disney named Morgan Stanley CEO James Gorman and former Sky chief Jeremy Darroch as new directors, with terms starting in early 2024.

Peltz’s Trian, which controls about $3 billion in Disney stock, issued a statement Thursday that after the Disney board rejected Trian’s request for board seats, including one for Peltz, the hedge fund will “take our case for change directly to shareholders.”

In response, Disney noted that 78% of the shares claimed to be beneficially owned by Trian are owned by former Marvel Entertainment chairman Ike Perlmutter. Disney said Perlmutter “was terminated from his employment by Disney earlier this year and has voiced his longstanding personal agenda against Disney’s CEO, Robert A. Iger, which may be different than that of all other shareholders.” Perlmutter did not immediately have any comment, his rep said.

On Thursday, investment management company Blackwells Capital, a Disney shareholder since 2018, weighed in on the drama by issuing a statement of support for Iger’s leadership of the company and the board appointments of Gorman and Darroch. “Displacing these individuals or other members of the board with Mr. Peltz and other Trian-selected nominees would deprive shareholders of valuable, experienced voices in the boardroom at a critical time in the company’s history,” Blackwells said. “Blackwells is concerned that Trian’s campaign prioritizes Mr. Peltz’s ego over what is best for all Disney shareholders, and that its latest effort may cost Disney shareholders upwards of $50 million and serve only as a value destructive fog for Disney’s leadership and board.”

Blackwells chief investment officer Jason Aintabi said in a statement, “Mindless, drum-beating activism is not the right strategy for shareholders. Disney’s board is acting in the best interests of all shareholders and should be allowed the time to focus on driving value at one of America’s most iconic companies without this fatuous sideshow.”

Regarding the reinstatement of the dividend, Disney chairman Mark Parker said in a statement, “This has been a year of important progress for The Walt Disney Company, defined by a strategic restructuring and a renewed focus on long-term growth. As Disney moves forward with its key strategic objectives, we are pleased to declare a dividend for our shareholders while we continue to invest in the company’s future and prioritize meaningful value creation.”
 
the Iron Giant flopped despite heavy marketing.
Warner Bros. sabotaged that movie's marketing, only to regret it years later--probably because Brad Bird got big tbh (but home video sales helped, too, plus Cartoon Network's Thanksgiving marathon), and he's on the record saying he'll never work for them again because of how much he fought them during production.
 
Why does nightcrawler look like spider man now,?
Because they are floundering terribly, and just wanted to put another Spidey book out for sales.

Kurt Wagner is "The Uncanny Spider-Man" for a little while, then it will be forgotten/ignored.

Amazing Spider-Man dropped to 90k sales for the first time in history, and they are doing at least one Spider-centric event crossover a year now (the next one has the creative name of "Gang War").
 
because the male demo is a fuck load more fickle, Think how quickly the fanbase turned on GOT or The Witcher and again thats if the Men bother paying. Look at the biggest "for men" media out there, joe rogan/andrew tate or porn. And its mostly all content put out there for fucking free. Even if its a movie that does appeal to men like maybe The Joker, its a lot more of a general audience film and can't be as awesome as say American Pie or Road House. The Hangover was probably the last big film that could be considered dude oriented that was huge and the sequels never hit as big because of how fickle men are.

All this rant about male demo being fickle and impossible to market towards makes no sense in a world where we can't see no end to the Fast and Furious franchise.

GOT is a bad example of "masculine show" as it was the big watercooler show of it's era, and half of the public were women (also children). It's also a bad example of a flop since, even as the last seasons have been considered terribly bad, they turned up audiences enough that the whole thing got a prequel, and the prequel is a success.

The real truth is nowadays no tentpole movie can market only towards one gender. Why would they? Cash has no gender. They can't even market towards one country, you gonna think about foreign markets.

For example, romantic comedies, a mostly female-focused genre that printed money in the 90's, are pretty much dead in theatres, only Netflix still makes them, mostly for a teen audience.
On the other end, capeshit has been mostly conceptualized for male: we got two dozen movies centered on the male avengers before Black Widow got one. But still, they are gonna throw in some bones for the women, for example they make sure that the one contractually-obligated shirtless scene Hemsworth signed up for is featured in the trailers and instruct the actress to hammer on about female empowerment in interviews, even if in truth their character is gonna have three meager scenes or die.

Tl;dr the males are consooming and it's not harder to get them to open their wallet. I mean, how would sport be such a big deal otherwise.
 
Last edited:
But it's also about those sisters and their personal relationship. The most emotional part of the entire movie (the hammock scene) focuses on them and I think Stitch is only like, in the background or something.
Its almost like they were able to have movies that appealed to multiple audiences back then. Little boys love Stitch but the story had an appeal to girls.

Its also why say Moana did well. The girls had the polynesiam princess but the boys had the Rock.

They dont even try to appeal to boys now. And point to shit like Barbie as why. Women dont care about shit long term for the most part without a touch of tism. Women are the ultimate consumers who are receptive to jumping on fad to fad
 
Even if its a movie that does appeal to men like maybe The Joker, its a lot more of a general audience film and can't be as awesome as say American Pie or Road House. The Hangover was probably the last big film that could be considered dude oriented that was huge and the sequels never hit as big because of how fickle men are.

What is Fast and Furious up to now? 10 Movies?

12485a3e66-2449453237.jpg
 
Fast X was a flop. Hobbs & Shaw made money, but not enough to greenlight a sequel. I believe the last several films made more money than they should have as a response to the superhero glut.
 
there's a live action/cgi Aristocats remake coming. Director has done two music videos and a documentary.
Have they reached the bottom of the barrel?
said as much when it was first announced a year ago. Now that we know Questlove is going to be directing it, it's going to be extra-shitacular.
no Oliver and Company yet
*a rap remix of Why Should I Worry*

DON'T. GIVE. THEM. IDEAS.
 
how the fuck did that even happen? i thought pixar got its head staff divded in two to help train the disney animation people on 3d and its been almost a decade and a half since then, the fact that Fawn has over a dozen years working and is still this shit is embarrassing. She is right at the point of her career where she should be knocking out hits. toy story, nightmare before christmas, and batman TAS were all done by people about a dozen years into working in animation and slowly rising in the management pipeline. I'm amazed at how bad this movie is considering how its two directors had a combined 50 years of animation skill.
My personal theory is that the original directors were John Musker and Ron Clements. Musker and Clements, for those who don't know, are the guys behind Little Mermaid, Aladdin, Hercules, Moana, and Treasure Planet -- the last of which was their true labor of love that Katzenberg only let them make after the first three movies had grossed like five billion dollars, lol. Anyway, these guys were colossally important to the Disney Renaissance. They have the skill, experience, institutional knowledge, and track record to make a huge animated film, whether hand-drawn or CGI. Obviously, it would make sense to put *them* on your big centennial tentpole princess musical? Why, then, did Disney opt for a pair of directors who had never worked together before, one of whom who has never *directed* before?

Well, because both Musker and Clements abruptly left Disney shortly after Wish's production began, and are now working on a movie at Warner Bros., co-produced by Dreamworks. These guys were absolute Disney lifers. Something major happened to make them jump ship to Disney's biggest rival.
 
i don't consider non-whites to be people. so a film franchise for our inferiors doesn't factor in at all. Also by male oriented literally look at iron man 1 vs Thor 4 in terms of how the men and women are presented and act. Same with GOT season 3 vs season 8.
You can't use racism as a distraction for being proven wrong. You think those are not people? Good for you, but i am not fazed, you're not even witty about it.

Also again that's just wrong. Plenty of white guys went to the F&F movies. They pay money to see Vin Diesel and The Rock wreck cars, that's just a fact. They also go to see John Wick, to see whatever Nolan, Tarantino and Scorsese put in theatre... they are gonna have another Batman movie... the white man demo is plenty catered for, do not worry.
I didn't even watch Thor 4 (for god's sake, you can't expect me to, 4 Thor movies is too much ) but i know Jane dies so it can hardly be some kind of feminist pamphlet.

The idea that there's nothing in theatre for men is just laughably incorrect.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom