Writer and actors on STRIKE. Most main stream TV and Movies come to a stand still

[93gilmour93]

Whats woke and what isnt woke?

(i know you wont answer)

You all seem to have very definitions of what it is and just like to use it with a buzz word without much thought behind it.

Is a female being the lead woke? Is a lead not being white woke? Is having any signs of someone being gay or a different sexual orientation from heterosexual woke? Is anything not directly representing the patriarchy woke?

A female lead isn’t woke but taking an existing franchise that takes all the (male characters) and replaces them with female characters like Ghostbusters did is woke for example.

Having a gay character isn’t woke but turning an existing character from a story who was never gay into a gay character just for social brownie points is woke.

Hiring people simply based on skin colour instead of the best candidate for the roll is woke.

This is the template for the writers and casting now….

There’s a couple of examples…..

 

[Peasy]

A female lead isn’t woke but taking an existing franchise that takes all the (male characters) and replaces them with female characters like Ghostbusters did is woke for example.

Having a gay character isn’t woke but turning an existing character from a story who was never gay into a gay character just for social brownie points is woke.

Hiring people simply based on skin colour instead of the best candidate for the roll is woke.

There’s a couple of examples…..

You were just hating on Strange World and saying it bombed because it had a gay character in it I cant lmao.

 

[93gilmour93]

You were just hating on Strange World and saying it bombed because it had a gay character in it I cant lmao.

I just put up numbers and the countries that banned it resulting in losses that could’ve made profits. I haven’t watched the movie so I don’t know what else is in it.

You asked for examples of what woke is and I gave it to you

 

[Tawnos]

Disney will be one of the next to back off eventually. After losses of over 123 billion last year the last things the need is to become the next Bud Light. Just a matter of time imo

As I pointed out earlier in the thread, Disney didn't lose $123 billion last year. That's the hit their market value took. Disney was profitable last year. They made over $11B in profit (or, more specifically, EBITDA). They made over $8B in EBITDA the year before.

You keep quoting market value, but the biggest driver of stocks of established companies is whether or not they hit or missed projections and whether or not they grew. If Disney says they're going to make $15B in EBITDA and they only make $11B, their market value will go down, despite the company continuing to be in great shape. If last year they made $11B and this year they make $9B, the market value will go down, again despite the company continuing to be in great shape.

 

[StrangeVision]

A female lead isn’t woke but taking an existing franchise that takes all the (male characters) and replaces them with female characters like Ghostbusters did is woke for example.

Having a gay character isn’t woke but turning an existing character from a story who was never gay into a gay character just for social brownie points is woke.

Hiring people simply based on skin colour instead of the best candidate for the roll is woke.

This is the template for the writers and casting now….

There’s a couple of examples…..

So being anti-woke is basically just an analogue for being an identity-obsessed asshole. Gotcha.

 

[93gilmour93]

So being anti-woke is basically just an analogue for being an identity-obsessed asshole. Gotcha.

And here we go with the name calling…..

 

[StrangeVision]

And here we go with the name calling…..

View attachment 736540

Go ahead and refute the point when you're done with the self-victimization.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

As I pointed out earlier in the thread, Disney didn't lose $123 billion last year. That's the hit their market value took. Disney was profitable last year. They made over $11B in profit (or, more specifically, EBITDA). They made over $8B in EBITDA the year before.

You keep quoting market value, but the biggest driver of stocks of established companies is whether or not they hit or missed projections and whether or not they grew. If Disney says they're going to make $15B in EBITDA and they only make $11B, their market value will go down, despite the company continuing to be in great shape. If last year they made $11B and this year they make $9B, the market value will go down, again despite the company continuing to be in great shape.

Yep.

Let's pull a few other numbers.

Company revenue (studios, parks, everything) was $82.7 billion in its fiscal 2022. That was up 23% versus 2021.
Net income was $3.1 billion. That was up 58%
Their fiscal year is October-September so these figures were from October 2021 through September 2022.

Let's take out parks (though the park's and overall company's opposition to DeSantis' Don't Say Gay bill got the whole business labeled as "woke"). But let's keep it to entertainment.

Media and Entertainment Distribution segment revenue rose 8% to $55 billion. Operating income did drop by 42%, but still was income and not a loss, at $4.2 billion.

But that's like almost a year ago! How about now?

Through the first nine months of its fiscal 2023 (Oct. 22 to June 23) revenue was $67.6 billion. That's up 8% versus the first nine months of 2022.
Net income in that period did drop 31% versus 2022, but also was $2 billion. (i.e. they MADE $2 billion. Not lost. Money in pockets.).

Entertainment and Distribution revenue is up 1% to $42 billion.
Operating income is down 46% to $2.2 billion. Again, a drop. But also still positive. i.e. they're MAKING money, not losing it.

Disney sold more and profited more in 2022.
Disney is selling more in 2023 and though it is profiting less, it is still turning a profit.

Sales have increased in its entertainment division. Profit has declined, but again it is turning a profit.

There is nuance to this and I won't pretend to understand every factor. Sales can increase because more people buy your stuff. It also can go up because you raised the prices on your stuff. Similar dynamics with profit. Maybe you're making less because you're selling less (doesn't seem to be the case here) but you can also sell the same or more and make less if what you're selling costs you more.

This is all very relevant to the strike talk too since these studios keep crying poverty while many of them (I can't speak for all) are still turning sizable profits.

Edit: went back and added in the entertainment division figures.

 

[93gilmour93]

Go ahead and refute the point when you're done with the self-victimization.

 

[kook10]

Yep.

Let's pull a few other numbers.

Company revenue (studios, parks, everything) was $82.7 billion in its fiscal 2022. That was up 23% versus 2021.
Net income was $3.1 billion. That was up 58%
Their fiscal year is October-September so these figures were from October 2021 through September 2022.

Let's take out parks (though the park's and overall company's opposition to DeSantis' Don't Say Gay bill got the whole business labeled as "woke"). But let's keep it to entertainment.

Media and Entertainment Distribution segment revenue rose 8% to $55 billion. Operating income did drop by 42%, but still was income and not a loss, at $4.2 billion.

But that's like almost a year ago! How about now?

Through the first nine months of its fiscal 2023 (Oct. 22 to June 23) revenue was $67.6 billion. That's up 8% versus the first nine months of 2022.
Net income in that period did drop 31% versus 2022, but also was $2 billion. (i.e. they MADE $2 billion. Not lost. Money in pockets.).

Entertainment and Distribution revenue is up 1% to $42 billion.
Operating income is down 46% to $2.2 billion. Again, a drop. But also still positive. i.e. they're MAKING money, not losing it.

Disney sold more and profited more in 2022.
Disney is selling more in 2023 and though it is profiting less, it is still turning a profit.

Sales have increased in its entertainment division. Profit has declined, but again it is turning a profit.

There is nuance to this and I won't pretend to understand every factor. Sales can increase because more people buy your stuff. It also can go up because you raised the prices on your stuff. Similar dynamics with profit. Maybe you're making less because you're selling less (doesn't seem to be the case here) but you can also sell the same or more and make less if what you're selling costs you more.

This is all very relevant to the strike talk too since these studios keep crying poverty while many of them (I can't speak for all) are still turning sizable profits.

Edit: went back and added in the entertainment division figures.

Coming out of covid I don't think you could really draw much inference on growth numbers. I also think that given the way Bud Light and also now Target (who today attributed their first decline in years to Pride month backlash) have been affected, it would be disingenuous to say that Disney is totally unaffected. Similarly, it would be disingenuous to say that "woke backlash" doesn't involve some measure of homophobia.

In any case, the WGA and the AMPTP are now talking again and that is a good sign.

 

[Tawnos]

Coming out of covid I don't think you could really draw much inference on growth numbers. I also think that given the way Bud Light and also now Target (who today attributed their first decline in years to Pride month backlash) have been affected, it would be disingenuous to say that Disney is totally unaffected. Similarly, it would be disingenuous to say that "woke backlash" doesn't involve some measure of homophobia.

In any case, the WGA and the AMPTP are now talking again and that is a good sign.

Well, as has been pointed out... it's hard to tell how if the anti-woke boycotters outweigh the audience brought in by greater representation and counter-boycotters. Bud Light and Target both gave in, which is the worst possible move you could make in this situation. In both cases you're talking about a situation where you don't get back all the anti-woke boycotters and you also alienated LGBTQ rights supporters. If you're going to go one direction on this stuff, you have to stick with it. Target and Bud Light can blame the backlash, but neither managed the controversies properly.

I haven't seen any evidence that Disney, or anyone else in Hollywood, is interested in backing off diversity casting.

 

[kook10]

Well, as has been pointed out... it's hard to tell how if the anti-woke boycotters outweigh the audience brought in by greater representation and counter-boycotters. Bud Light and Target both gave in, which is the worst possible move you could make in this situation. In both cases you're talking about a situation where you don't get back all the anti-woke boycotters and you also alienated LGBTQ rights supporters. If you're going to go one direction on this stuff, you have to stick with it. Target and Bud Light can blame the backlash, but neither managed the controversies properly.

I haven't seen any evidence that Disney, or anyone else in Hollywood, is interested in backing off diversity casting.

I see it. I work in Hollywood. It's more through cancellation of "diverse" projects and shrinking of corporate DEI initiatives rather than removing individual characters in broader projects.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

Coming out of covid I don't think you could really draw much inference on growth numbers. I also think that given the way Bud Light and also now Target (who today attributed their first decline in years to Pride month backlash) have been affected, it would be disingenuous to say that Disney is totally unaffected. Similarly, it would be disingenuous to say that "woke backlash" doesn't involve some measure of homophobia.

In any case, the WGA and the AMPTP are now talking again and that is a good sign.

Yeah, that's part of the nuance I was talking about for sure. A LOT goes into these things. Though I would also note that angry fan beefs with Disney's creative direction also predate Covid.

I actually do agree that the "woke" allegations have some impact though I feel it's overstated. When it comes to entertainment I genuinely do not believe that it is a bigger factor than issues like oversaturation of streaming services and entertainment options or cash-strapped consumers deciding to spend less on things, to name a few factors. Heck some people may feel all three of these! Again, nuance.

 

[Finlandia WOAT]

Having a gay character isn’t woke but turning an existing character from a story who was never gay into a gay character just for social brownie points is woke.

The live action Beauty and the Beast remake did that, and it was the 2nd highest grossing film of that year, behind the "woke" (?) The Last Jedi.

You can abstract this to make it sound sinister, but at the end of the day you're complaining Disney changed the motivation of a side character, that was, conveniently enough, done in such a way that it could be edited out without any trouble for foreign release.

The remake of 3:10 to Yuma also did this. This has nothing to do with anything, really, just that the remake of 3:10 to Yuma is a good film and everyone should see it. The original is also very good.

 

[CanesUltimate11]

A female lead isn’t woke but taking an existing franchise that takes all the (male characters) and replaces them with female characters like Ghostbusters did is woke for example.

Having a gay character isn’t woke but turning an existing character from a story who was never gay into a gay character just for social brownie points is woke.

Hiring people simply based on skin colour instead of the best candidate for the roll is woke.

This is the template for the writers and casting now….

There’s a couple of examples…..

And yet earlier you claimed Disney left money on the table with Lightyear being banned in 14 countries for being “woke”. And yet per your definition here. having a gay original character isn’t woke.

So which is it?

 

[93gilmour93]

And yet earlier you claimed Disney left money on the table with Lightyear being banned in 14 countries for being “woke”. And yet per your definition here. having a gay original character isn’t woke.

So which is it?

I never brought up Lightyear whatever that is

 

[CanesUltimate11]

I never brought up Lightyear whatever that is

Countries refusing to show the movies because of the Woke agenda in them

Lightyear could not be shown in 14 Middle Eastern and Asian countries because of its depiction of a same-sex relationship. That also had an impact on its global box office performance.

Please proceed Governor.

 

[93gilmour93]

Please Governor, proceed.

That’s why I didn’t remember. That was a copy and paste from an article when someone asked for an example in a link I gave him. Hard to keep up with every post when the woke army is attacking

 

[Jumptheshark]

So being anti-woke is basically just an analogue for being an identity-obsessed asshole. Gotcha.

Can you explain what woke is please--I believe that is the question he/she/it is asking

 

[Osprey]

No, no, no, no, no. We are not "both siding" this.

I just pointed out that the two sides weren't on the same page regarding the meaning of "losing money," which was producing needless disagreement. You even acknowledged that, but didn't like me saying it, anyways, seemingly because you refuse to give up an inch to the other poster. Also, I'm not the only person to suggest that the issue is nuanced. What you call "both siding" is more like "neither siding" because it's dismissing the idea that the issue is black or white and suggesting that the truth may lie somewhere in the middle.

 

[Scandale du Jour]

I just pointed out that the two sides weren't on the same page regarding the meaning of "losing money" and that they could both be true from different points of view. You even acknowledged as much, but didn't like me saying it, anyways, seemingly because you refuse to give up an inch to the other poster. A few other people have also said that the issue could be a little of both and nuanced. What you call "both siding" is more like "neither siding" because it's dismissing the idea that the issue is black or white and suggesting that the truth may lie somewhere in the middle.

Nope, what I was saying is that the poster in question was not worth discussing the issue with. You were trying to legitimize his nonsense. The truth is not "in the middle". The truth is that decline of revenue/profits is caused by many factors one of which is, to a degree, the backlash against wokeness. His position was "lol go woke go broke". There is no middle ground to find when that is the degree of sophistication found in a point of view.

If you want to argue that the message in certain films/series as a negative effect on revenue, the analysis has to go deeper than that and acknowledge the deep societal division in America. "Wokeness", in itself, is not a cause.

 

[Osprey]

Nope, what I was saying is that the poster in question was not worth discussing the issue with. You were trying to legitimize his nonsense. The truth is not "in the middle". The truth is that decline of revenue/profits is caused by many factors one of which is, to a degree, the backlash against wokeness. His position was "lol go woke go broke". There is no middle ground to find when that is the degree of sophistication found in a point of view.

Arguing that "wokeness" is one of many factors for declining revenue is the middle ground. It's not arguing that it's no reason or that it's the main reason (like he's arguing). By agreeing with him that it's a factor, you're legitimizing his position, too.

 

[Osprey]

I think you have a few in the neanderthal army helping in your defence

Is it really necessary to insult others just to get back at him? FYI, I disagree with quite a few things that he's said. I also disagree with things that others have said. Trying to take a more moderate position and having to defend it is not defending him.

 

[Scandale du Jour]

Arguing that "wokeness" is one of many factors for declining revenue is the middle ground. It's not arguing that it's no reason or that it's the main reason (like he's arguing). By agreeing with him that it's a factor, you're legitimizing his position, too.

Not really as this is not his position. His position as no nuance.

Yours, from the start has. That middle ground I am more than willing to reach because you are a person, even when I disagree with you, that is capable of making a coherent point. The poster was being obtuse.

The backlash against "wokeness" is a factor, sure, but to me, it is more of a symptom of a larger social phenomenon. Without the larger phenomenon, the backlash likely would not exist in the way it does now. I think numbers would likely still be down around the same amount because of the other market factors I brought up.

 

[Hasbro]

Here's a list of flops from 2019, which ones are woke?

X-Men: Dark Phoenix
Cats
Terminator: Dark Fate
The Goldfinch
Gemini Man
Richard Jewell
Charlie's Angels
UglyDolls
Midway
Playmobil

Shooting fascists...sound pretty woke.