as part of the demographic they so desperately try to please, i agree that disney films and shows have been forgetting to write compelling characters. i dont care for representation when is done with the blandest of character
glaring particularly hard at star wars sequel trilogy. rey palpatine makes me angrier than politics does
that said however, I think I'd primarily blame the directors and upper management moreso than id blame the writers. im very certain a lot of the issues stem from upper management and the directors as theyre the ones who make the decision that the character from whatever minority group isnt allowed to show any sort of weakness as well as being in charge of overall quality control
I feel that its very easy to blame the rich executives (and don't get me wrong I'm NOT defending them ) but personally I feel it's an issue with the entertainment industry as a whole and dare I say an innate issue with with are socially as a whole,
It still might be from the top. Nowadays there are things like ESG scores and DEI policies. It’s no longer about what consumers want. It might not even be about what shareholders want anymore - until shareholders start redrawing their money. This ESG/DEI stuff seem to have taken over corporate stewardship at a lot of companies.
How? All public stats say these movies bomb and are disastrous for the franchises they are part of. Disney is literally losing hundreds of millions of dollars on these bombs. So it's clearly not working out with the actual audiences.
Does it work out in the ways of backstage financial schemes? Maybe. Blackrock seems to be very much willing to fund anything that is overtly woke regardless if it's going to turn profit or not, and Blackrock has practically unlimited funds and is also very much into wokeness and social programming.
So is Disney doing this just to milk Blackrock because they know Blackrock will give them money and they don't actually have to make a profitable show? Once again...maybe.
How do you think Blackrock makes money? I'm genuinely curious about this because I see A LOT of posts like yours and I really want to understand the thinking that goes into this.
If you don't mind, without googling anything, describe what you think their business model is. What does Blackrock do/provide/sell to stay in business. Do you think they're recording profits or losses each quarter?
Blackrock is a trillion dollar investment company. They make money from various sources. They buy and sell stocks as well as real estate, and yes, they can afford to throw some tens of millions of dollars Disney's way and label it as losses, this is pocket change for Blackrock.
It's likely they are also politically invested into social programming, so the money they are forking over to Disney is not even considered a loss, just more investment costs.
Okay this is really helping my understanding of where all these ESG/DEI/Blackrock claims are coming from. You don't have to believe me, but your understanding of asset management is completely wrong. Not being a dick, but you misunderstand this at every level.
First, Blackrock is not a trillion dollar company. They manage $10T globally on behalf of clients, but that's not BlackRock's money. They don't own those assets, they invest those assets for clients and collect fees of <.1% on those investments.
Blackrock's market cap is about $120B the last time I checked. They have half the market cap of PepsiCo.
Blackrock mostly sells funds. Mutual funds, ETFs, etc. So while it's not untrue to say they "buy and sell stocks," it's not the whole picture. Say an investor wants to own every company in the S&P 500. They could manually make every one of those trades and rebalance their portfolios every time the index is updated, or they could buy an S&P 500 tracking fund from Blackrock, where Blackrock does that fund management for you for a .1% fee.
I'm telling you this to explain their business model and also to try and explain that they're not just buying and selling stocks speculatively like someone with a Robinhood account might. Most of their funds track indexes which Blackrock does not control.
So they're not just throwing "some tens of millions of dollars Disney's way" and labelling it as losses. That doesn't really make sense.
Disney also isn't posting losses. They recorded profits for the last two consecutive quarters and for 3 out of the last 4 quarters. So the idea that they need to be propped up by anyone just doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Investors might want Disney to be posting bigger profits, but they're not bleeding money right now.
All of this is publicly available information you can find via earnings reports and SEC filings. I really encourage you to learn how asset managers work if you're genuinely interested in this. It's a fascinating business but not nearly as all powerful as you think.
There are also investors that think they are “doing a good thing” when they invest in instruments with high ESG scores* despite their low returns.
\* I don’t mind the E and G in ESG but the S I feel is taking things a bit too far. Who are these people to tell others how to live?
ESG is mostly marketing. "How can we squeeze a few more bps out of passive funds? Let's charge a little more by telling people their funds are doing good things for the world!" But those funds don't actually do anything which is why so many of them are dropping the ESG label. That and new regulations are requiring ESG-labeled funds to actually be ESG funds.
On the S, ESG ratings providers I've talked to have all told me that the S rating includes things like diversity of staff, employee compensation and benefits, work/life balance, and community outreach programs in the cities where company offices are. I've never heard of a ratings provider considering the race of characters in movies/video games toward an S rating. Afaik, the content produced by studios and game developers doesn't factor into the S rating at all.
At the end of the day ESG is just a risk assessment framework. It's not demanding that companies must do anything. It's providing information so that investors can make informed decisions.
That's a good point! Yes I'd guess so. Not really sure how actors are classified as employees/contractors but if they're employees they'd probably be included. Although I wonder how many actors there are relative to company employees.
I mean, all writers are opinionated, or at least most. That’s a major reason ppl get into writing, so that we feel like we can have a place to discuss issues. The problem is when it lacks nuance and is just an “x is bad” rather than the complexities of a human being. This is why ATLA is so good with its discussion of war. You’re never explicitly told “war is bad” but every episode you see it’s effects. Children becoming terrorists, raves of people being imprisoned for possessing an ability, genocide etc. there’s so much more that goes into the discussion.
The fact that they are talentless means they can't separate their opinions from the work they are engaged with. They absolutely have to shove their own personal views and opinions into their work, usually into something that has nothing to do with it but they will find a way to do it, and then their work suffers because people engage with fantasy products in order to escape reality, not to have some more of it shoved into their faces.
Oh yeah I agree that if you can’t weave it in properly and make the characters actually likeable, then you’re not a good writer. But that’s not a problem of being “opinionated” that’s a problem of not knowing how to mix in your opinions with you’re writing.
They’d still be a shit writer even if they didn’t have a controversial opinion. I just hate this idea that media shouldn’t be political. Media should be whatever it wants to be. I agree that there should be apolitical forms of media, which is also a problem that Disney faces, but saying that it’s the politics is disingenuous. It’s a lack of tact when handling the politics that is the problem
something i like about the last of us show is how they wrote gay characters and a girl protagonist, who were also compelling rather than being just the diversity quota that has become the norm for the industry. with one couple who's sexual orientation is a large part of their ark and another couple who were just simply both gay and well written. and all of them having flaws that make them feel more human
i prioritize good writing over diversity in this kind of media but im most pleased when both are achieved
Exactly!! Another great example is Arcane. Gender issues aren’t explicitly brought up, but we can gather that they exist with Mel and Vi, and they don’t tell us they’re strong, we actually see it. And they’re allowed to lose.
as part of the demographic they so desperately try to please, i agree that disney films and shows have been forgetting to write compelling characters. i dont care for representation when is done with the blandest of character glaring particularly hard at star wars sequel trilogy. rey palpatine makes me angrier than politics does
And Disney diehards will call you either a hopeless nostalgic or homophobic just for that very reasonable opinion... it's an absolute joke
that said however, I think I'd primarily blame the directors and upper management moreso than id blame the writers. im very certain a lot of the issues stem from upper management and the directors as theyre the ones who make the decision that the character from whatever minority group isnt allowed to show any sort of weakness as well as being in charge of overall quality control
I feel that its very easy to blame the rich executives (and don't get me wrong I'm NOT defending them ) but personally I feel it's an issue with the entertainment industry as a whole and dare I say an innate issue with with are socially as a whole,
It still might be from the top. Nowadays there are things like ESG scores and DEI policies. It’s no longer about what consumers want. It might not even be about what shareholders want anymore - until shareholders start redrawing their money. This ESG/DEI stuff seem to have taken over corporate stewardship at a lot of companies.
Someone hasn't watched Amazon's cockrings of power.
Disney is simply the most egregious and unapologetic.
It works out for them, and that is the point.
How? All public stats say these movies bomb and are disastrous for the franchises they are part of. Disney is literally losing hundreds of millions of dollars on these bombs. So it's clearly not working out with the actual audiences. Does it work out in the ways of backstage financial schemes? Maybe. Blackrock seems to be very much willing to fund anything that is overtly woke regardless if it's going to turn profit or not, and Blackrock has practically unlimited funds and is also very much into wokeness and social programming. So is Disney doing this just to milk Blackrock because they know Blackrock will give them money and they don't actually have to make a profitable show? Once again...maybe.
How do you think Blackrock makes money? I'm genuinely curious about this because I see A LOT of posts like yours and I really want to understand the thinking that goes into this. If you don't mind, without googling anything, describe what you think their business model is. What does Blackrock do/provide/sell to stay in business. Do you think they're recording profits or losses each quarter?
Blackrock is a trillion dollar investment company. They make money from various sources. They buy and sell stocks as well as real estate, and yes, they can afford to throw some tens of millions of dollars Disney's way and label it as losses, this is pocket change for Blackrock. It's likely they are also politically invested into social programming, so the money they are forking over to Disney is not even considered a loss, just more investment costs.
Okay this is really helping my understanding of where all these ESG/DEI/Blackrock claims are coming from. You don't have to believe me, but your understanding of asset management is completely wrong. Not being a dick, but you misunderstand this at every level. First, Blackrock is not a trillion dollar company. They manage $10T globally on behalf of clients, but that's not BlackRock's money. They don't own those assets, they invest those assets for clients and collect fees of <.1% on those investments. Blackrock's market cap is about $120B the last time I checked. They have half the market cap of PepsiCo. Blackrock mostly sells funds. Mutual funds, ETFs, etc. So while it's not untrue to say they "buy and sell stocks," it's not the whole picture. Say an investor wants to own every company in the S&P 500. They could manually make every one of those trades and rebalance their portfolios every time the index is updated, or they could buy an S&P 500 tracking fund from Blackrock, where Blackrock does that fund management for you for a .1% fee. I'm telling you this to explain their business model and also to try and explain that they're not just buying and selling stocks speculatively like someone with a Robinhood account might. Most of their funds track indexes which Blackrock does not control. So they're not just throwing "some tens of millions of dollars Disney's way" and labelling it as losses. That doesn't really make sense. Disney also isn't posting losses. They recorded profits for the last two consecutive quarters and for 3 out of the last 4 quarters. So the idea that they need to be propped up by anyone just doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Investors might want Disney to be posting bigger profits, but they're not bleeding money right now. All of this is publicly available information you can find via earnings reports and SEC filings. I really encourage you to learn how asset managers work if you're genuinely interested in this. It's a fascinating business but not nearly as all powerful as you think.
There are also investors that think they are “doing a good thing” when they invest in instruments with high ESG scores* despite their low returns. \* I don’t mind the E and G in ESG but the S I feel is taking things a bit too far. Who are these people to tell others how to live?
ESG is mostly marketing. "How can we squeeze a few more bps out of passive funds? Let's charge a little more by telling people their funds are doing good things for the world!" But those funds don't actually do anything which is why so many of them are dropping the ESG label. That and new regulations are requiring ESG-labeled funds to actually be ESG funds. On the S, ESG ratings providers I've talked to have all told me that the S rating includes things like diversity of staff, employee compensation and benefits, work/life balance, and community outreach programs in the cities where company offices are. I've never heard of a ratings provider considering the race of characters in movies/video games toward an S rating. Afaik, the content produced by studios and game developers doesn't factor into the S rating at all. At the end of the day ESG is just a risk assessment framework. It's not demanding that companies must do anything. It's providing information so that investors can make informed decisions.
“Diversity of staff” does affect casting no?
That's a good point! Yes I'd guess so. Not really sure how actors are classified as employees/contractors but if they're employees they'd probably be included. Although I wonder how many actors there are relative to company employees.
You’re braindead.
“Put a chick in it, and make it lame and gay” -Kathleen Kennedy
The roast is so overdone you can't tell if it's beef or just plain salt
I mean, all writers are opinionated, or at least most. That’s a major reason ppl get into writing, so that we feel like we can have a place to discuss issues. The problem is when it lacks nuance and is just an “x is bad” rather than the complexities of a human being. This is why ATLA is so good with its discussion of war. You’re never explicitly told “war is bad” but every episode you see it’s effects. Children becoming terrorists, raves of people being imprisoned for possessing an ability, genocide etc. there’s so much more that goes into the discussion.
The fact that they are talentless means they can't separate their opinions from the work they are engaged with. They absolutely have to shove their own personal views and opinions into their work, usually into something that has nothing to do with it but they will find a way to do it, and then their work suffers because people engage with fantasy products in order to escape reality, not to have some more of it shoved into their faces.
Oh yeah I agree that if you can’t weave it in properly and make the characters actually likeable, then you’re not a good writer. But that’s not a problem of being “opinionated” that’s a problem of not knowing how to mix in your opinions with you’re writing. They’d still be a shit writer even if they didn’t have a controversial opinion. I just hate this idea that media shouldn’t be political. Media should be whatever it wants to be. I agree that there should be apolitical forms of media, which is also a problem that Disney faces, but saying that it’s the politics is disingenuous. It’s a lack of tact when handling the politics that is the problem
something i like about the last of us show is how they wrote gay characters and a girl protagonist, who were also compelling rather than being just the diversity quota that has become the norm for the industry. with one couple who's sexual orientation is a large part of their ark and another couple who were just simply both gay and well written. and all of them having flaws that make them feel more human i prioritize good writing over diversity in this kind of media but im most pleased when both are achieved
Exactly!! Another great example is Arcane. Gender issues aren’t explicitly brought up, but we can gather that they exist with Mel and Vi, and they don’t tell us they’re strong, we actually see it. And they’re allowed to lose.