That is exactly what corporations do. They are designed for that specific purpose. The bosses keep their careers and bonuses when the company makes money. They would not have greenlighted a movie that they thought would lose money. That makes for a short career.
What is woke about the lil mermaid?
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
That is exactly what corporations do. They are designed for that specific purpose. The bosses keep their careers and bonuses when the company makes money. They would not have greenlighted a movie that they thought would lose money. That makes for a short career.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
Exactly. Investors hate to invest money and then lose it. If the money is lost due to malfeasance, then the investors can sue.
Notice that Fox investors are suing the Murdochs for their part in the election lies. They'll win too. Why? Because the law is on the investor's side.
https://www.reuters.com/legal/gover...lders-are-circling-rupert-murdoch-2023-04-19/
Fox shareholders are circling Rupert Murdoch
Nomad
Every trumper is a N4T.
Doesn't take a rocket science business guy lawyer to understand that this type of decision doesn't fall under fiduciary responsibility.
If that were so, any decision that in the end, proved to have not been profitable, could open company leadership up to breach of fiduciary duty charges.
Fiduciary duty has to do with avoiding reckless or dishonest behavior, intentional misuse of company revenue, etc.
Nomad
Every trumper is a N4T.
Who said they thought they were going to lose money?
My contention is that they rolled the dice and crossed their fingers in hopes that they could simultaneously satisfy the woke and also make a profit.
No movie is a 100% sure thing anyway.
I just feel like the desire to appease the woke overshadowed the need to make money.
Nomad
Every trumper is a N4T.
Investors look at a company's profit history over time, not the success or failure of one movie.
And there's no way a woke casting decision could be proven to be malfeasance.
Especially in today's woke climate.
Nobody would dare sue over such a thing.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
Meh. The courts will figure it out. I'm willing to wager the Murdochs will lose or settle.
Only if their actions were contrary to their duties, as the Murdochs did or, if as you accuse, the Disney leaders were executing a "woke agenda" instead of their fiduciary responsibilities.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
Agreed. In this case the reason the movie isn't as profitable is not because of them but because of white supremacist fuckwits.
Disagreed since, if the motive is "woke" and not "profit", then the decision is contrary to investor interests....unless that's what the investors want. Consider that there are different mutual funds, some of which are "green" or "woke" in nature.
It's all about the money. Most of those screaming about "woke" are either very rich or lower income. Most of those investing in Disney are middle class or higher income.
Nomad
Every trumper is a N4T.
I wasn't discussing the Murdock case.
Again, a casting decision cannot be characterized as a fiduciary responsibility since any actor could potentially make a movie successful or unsuccessful.
That kind of decision is a crap shoot.
No way anyone could ever prove it to be a breach of responsibility.
Unless they cast a deaf, blind, quadriplegic in the lead role.
Nomad
Every trumper is a N4T.
No way anybody could ever prove that Disney flagrantly disregarded profitability even if their casting decision was woke.
They would claim that woke was only one of many factors, which as I said in an earlier post, I believe is likely the case.
Just that appeasing the woke probably took a degree of precedence.
Your contention makes no sense. Can you imagine backing a woke agenda and losing money? That is not good for a career. All Disney decisions are about money.
Maybe we could help them with the definition of 'strategic'.
I can't imagine having these short sighted idiots on the board.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
Nice dodge. So are you admitting it was a casting decision and not a "woke agenda"?
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
Doubling down on stupid is still stupid, Nomad.
Here is my take. As a STRATEGIC thinker. Disney made a decision several years ago to do live remakes. I'm sure that as part of that strategic plan, there were discussions about making characters more diverse. That would reflect a strategic vision for the company.
What Disney could not have foreseen at that time, or even at the time the movie began production, is that a bunch of narrow minded hateful idiots would pick that exact moment in time to have a pissing contest with Disney, and that 'woke' would suddenly have replaced intelligence or critical thinking on the right. A perfect storm of hatred and stupidity. That said, it would not make sense to suddenly veer from that strategic vision because there might be a short term hit to some movie.
I suspect also that my rather simplistic strategic speculation would be about three layers deeper than they are capable of thinking.
What Disney could not have foreseen at that time, or even at the time the movie began production, is that a bunch of narrow minded hateful idiots would pick that exact moment in time to have a pissing contest with Disney, and that 'woke' would suddenly have replaced intelligence or critical thinking on the right. A perfect storm of hatred and stupidity. That said, it would not make sense to suddenly veer from that strategic vision because there might be a short term hit to some movie.
I suspect also that my rather simplistic strategic speculation would be about three layers deeper than they are capable of thinking.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
While I agree that such ideas float around companies for years, the cynic in me knows "It's all about the money". Ergo, like our own government, companies tend to look no further than next year, not five years ahead, much less decades. I wish they would but they don't.
That said, I think you are partially correct about live remakes. The difference being that, instead of planning a series of live remakes, they simply looked at the profit margins of remaking the same stories with live actors then chose from there.
Nomad
Every trumper is a N4T.
When were you ever a member of Disney's (or any other corporation's) board of directors?
Occasionally other considerations come into play.
Nomad
Every trumper is a N4T.
You are just babbling now.
I don't think you know what you're yapping about anymore than I know what you're yapping about.
Your last two replies make zero sense.
You must've started drinking early today.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
No worries, Nomad. Others, if they care, can read and decide for themselves.
Meanwhile....
Some people worry about "woke", others have fun making money and spending it. LOL
Nomad
Every trumper is a N4T.
So you acknowledge that I could very well be right in that Disney's casting decision in this movie might have been made in part, for what I will call "woke" reasons, though you'd obviously use a different term.
Awesome.
You're lumping a lot of people into a neat little category there.
No problem though, as that kind of thing, like avoiding a movie because you don't approve of the idea that a casting decision might have been made to adhere to a current, popular social trend one isn't comfortable with, is all part of human nature and done for a myriad of personal reasons by each individual, and which are too numerous and complex to just put into a neat little box.
