>Separately, board member Catz privately told Chapek he was making a huge mistake releasing the animated movie “Strange World,” which featured an openly gay character. Catz, who was on former President Donald Trump’s transition team, told him the movie was too polarizing and not up to Disney’s quality standards. She warned a poor performance wouldn’t play well with the board.
>But Chapek and other Disney studio executives knew they’d have to release the movie. The last thing Disney needed was to anger the LGBTQ community again.
>Disney released the movie on Nov. 23, 2022. It was a giant flop, losing Disney about $200 million.
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/09/06/disney-succession-mess-iger-chapek.html
Meanwhile based WB Discovery knew Batgirl was going to be a piece of shit and swiftly canned it.
They should've canned Flash too, that made them lose even more money.
This
But Stephen King and Tom Cruise both said it was the greatest superhero movie ever. It’s destined to be a super mega hit which has 2,000x returns.
homosexual
Well, good job Chapek, you dolts released the movie, lost a frick ton of money, AND angered the alphabet community again, good job.
Why didn't they fire Jennifer Lee for producing this trash?
Chapek was just a puppet, iger wanted it released.
>The last thing Disney needed was to anger the alphabet cult again
Why do companies keep kneeling to the minority cultists? It doesn't matter what you do to "appease", those monsters are never satisfied.
>Why do companies keep kneeling to the minority cultists?
Because half their staff are made of these mentally ill freaks, or the wives of CEOs are fat feminist types pushing for this kind of shit.
Because white people are idiots, and everybody who likes these franchises suffer for their wrong-headed guilt.
because this guy built a trillionaire structure just to convince normalgays that sodomites must be worshipped
Look up Blackrock EGS
They all kneel not for the "minorities" but for massive ass financial kickbacks for making it look like they do.
Better yet, don't look up /misc/'s boogeyman of the year.
https://twitter.com/WatcherGuru/status/1671290925765541889/mediaViewer?currentTweet=1671290925765541889¤tTweetUser=WatcherGuru
>movie was bland and bad full stop
>but lets blame the GAAAAYS
like clockwork
You're not fooling anyone, alphabetoid. This shit flopping is proof enough that everyone is tired of your homohomosexualry.
>>but lets blame the GAAAAYS
Played a big role in it flopping tho
LGBTQIA+ and Christians are both child-diddling groomers.
Shove a screwdriver into your eye socket and twist you degenerate.
go choke on barbed wire, savage
>3 main male leads
>themes on fartherhood
>rugged adventure into a alien underground caven
But they just couldn't pull it off.
They couln't write or animate it to back up the core appeals.
>soft, as in no hearty emotion to it.
>themes on learning to live in harmony with enviroment rather than expressions of resilience and strength in the face of danger
>just the wrong place to have your first gay lead and his design is unappealing as frick
You can tell this was pitched by some guys who saw a great return to adventure but the team who made it just were not the kind of people to bring it to life.
it does feel like the entertainment industry's in an awkward stage where they try to appeal to progressive trends because they hear there's good money in doing so, but haven't gotten comfortable enough to hit that harmonious progressive AND marketable sweet spot. Maybe they'll get it right in this next decade.
They're also stuck trying to serve two masters. They don't want to be blasted by blue checkmark journos for not being woke, but they also don't want to lose out on that sweet China/Russia/Middle East money.
Hence all this nonsense
1. Blue checkmarks are mostly right-wing grifters/Elon simps these days.
2. Disney hasn't been selling movies to China since Shang Chi.
Only recently. You forget that a lot of stuff was made years in advance, so the point still stands. They catered to the Blue Checkmarks of yesteryear.
Spoiler: there is no money to be made from them
Pride Month says otherwise. Companies wouldn't be going rainbow if there wasn't a benefit to their bottom line from it.
ESG and Middle East accounts say otherwise.
It's a scam.
>You can tell this was pitched by some guys who saw a great return to adventure but the team who made it just were not the kind of people to bring it to life.
The movie has a shockingly awful opening which undermines anything that happens later. There’s the gag where one of the explorers seemingly dies but then reveals he’s just fine. They just told the audience that this pulp adventure movie will have no peril. That’s counterproductive to an effective pulp adventure movie.
Shortly after, the father and son have a heated argument. One of the fellow adventurers jokingly remarks that “oh, they’re not ACTUALLY arguing about whatever.” First, it’s kind of insulting to the audience when the writers feel like they need to point out that subtext exists. Second, with the joking way the character delivers the lines, they’ve again undercut the moment and said “there will be no emotional stakes in this movie.” Which is an odd thing to do as a writer when you believe that your story is addressing the topic of intergenerational trauma.
So, yes, they didn’t have it in them to handle adventure. Or even good storytelling.
But it had a Black person homosexual in it, so critics thought it was brilliant.
>critics thought it was brilliant
ah yes, 65 on Metacritic and 72 on Rotten Tomatoes, such high praise
>There’s the gag where one of the explorers seemingly dies but then reveals he’s just fine
?t=82
Can't even tell the character is male. He looks like a fat black woman. And lemme guess: his bf is also a twink. Twinks don't partner up, they seek out MASCULINE gays.
It's always really weird how you can get so far into the production of a film, and then just decide it's not going to make enough money, and then either cut down on marketing costs (Strange World), or write it off as a tax expense (Batwoman).
What a strange world we live in. No pun intended, I guess.
You think that's weird, spending all that cash and then aborting a project? You should see our space program.
Have you ever enthusiastically started a drawing only to abandon it midway, because it got worse the more you worked on it? Movie making can be like that on a grander scale. It's turd polishing.
That said, whatever is happening at Disney is complicated by the fact so many of them are diehard ideologues who don't have to answer directly for their incompetence because the studio's failures are offset by other aspects of Disney's business. This is why there are stockholder calls for Disney to split up the company into a studio division and a parks division.
The stockholders aren't saying "get woke go broke" outright, but splitting up the company means removing safety nets from the studio division, which will cause them to either shape up or die quickly, at which point the parks business can come back in and scoop up the IPs for cheap while firing a bunch of people.
That's pretty smart of them. Hope it works
Show me a parents who will bring they kids to such a movie.
I don't know why is Disney even trying when as it is they are incapable of writing gay characters that appeal to actual gays simply because none of the characters they make are actually cool and frickable
>none of the characters they make are actually cool and frickable
It there some weird line that gays or gay allies aren't willing to cross regarding sexuality and how its viewed by the greater public? Like would something like this be like the Family friendly pride weirdos?
They already did it once but pulled the plug.
>too polarizing
It looks like shiiiiiiiiiiiiiit!
Bland, sub-Dreamworks, uninspired, written by committee, directionless trash!
I don't care if you're straight, gay, or "other". Everyone can agree it looks like amalgamated story mush.
What do I remember from the trailer?
Some people
Go on
An adventure
with fantasy motifs
Holy Christ. It's like it was calculated to be as unremarkable as possible.
Frozen, Cars, Toy Story. You know you're getting a unique experience.
Even something like Brave. Not the best, but it focused on one character and had clean visuals. They had to create new software to model her hair and it showed. The effort was on the screen.
This looks like they went to clean out the machine they crank out movies with, compressed all the waste goo into a timeline, and slapped a title on the excreta.
Too bad
Catz sounds like a pussy.
As if the gays were the problem in the movie. The movie flopped because it just wasn't an interesting or compelling film to see on the big screen, gays had nothing to do with it. The movie would have flopped exactly the same had they changed the gay relationship into a straight one, zero difference in box office money.
I honestly didn't hear it had a gay character til after it came out.
Not like I kept up with all their marketing but I don't think they mentioned it in their surface level campaign. There were probably articles about it, but I doubt the average Joe would have known just going by ads.
>As if the gays were the problem in the movie. The movie flopped because it just wasn't an interesting or compelling film to see on the big screen, gays had nothing to do with it.
It had everything to do with it. Not only does it instantly cut the ticket sales in half, hiring cultists to do a media product means they put more effort and emphasis on the message than the quality of the product. Same reason why religious films and cartoons made by religious are so fricking lame and boring, message over quality.
?si=yft7fKmIi2mOkw2f
And don't tell me that doesn't happen with Disney products when the live version films like Peter Pan and Little Mermaid are oozing with stupid wokeshit. Don't let feminists produce or direct movies. Unless its a french feminist director doing gory horror movies about cannibals or something.
>more effort and emphasis on the message
That is not necessarily a bad thing if the message is important or compelling.
However this movie didn't seem to have any message whatsoever.
Just "uh, here's some shit we came up with"
>That is not necessarily a bad thing if the message is important or compelling.
So you would gladly eat shit if it came in a bag saying World Peace Is Important.
>So you would gladly eat shit if it came in a bag saying World Peace Is Important.
I wouldn't, but there are absolutely people who would.
Worthless schizo
Don't be so angry anon. Cinemaphile should be love.
My takeaway is that the current hollywood dumbfricks are even dumber than Donald Trump's transition team.
There's a market, but I'm betting supply exceeds demand here.
>gays had nothing to do with it. The movie would have flopped exactly the same had they changed the gay relationship into a straight one, zero difference in box office money.
I agree on the second half, disagree on the first half. Disney isn't going to frick up on messaging with gays, as it will piss off the conservative parts of the world/fanbase and their own employees. But all the time and effort on that is a distraction, and the fricking script felt hafassed.
>As if the gays were the problem in the movie. The movie flopped because it just wasn't an interesting or compelling film to see on the big screen
Not wanting to offend anyone seems to be a big factor in why these movies aren't compelling.
I would even say that blaming gay pandering is not the same as blaming gays. Conflating the two is the common tactic of identity politics.
The LGBTQ+ people make up about 13% or under of the population at any given time. Everyone also has the memories of goldfish, so they just would’ve forgotten Disney shelved a movie with a gay in it.
>13% or under
Yeah I definitely think its under.
Unless you're counting people that are sllllliiiiightly bisexual. Like one time you thought about kissing a guy.
>Everyone also has the memories of goldfish, so they just would’ve forgotten Disney shelved a movie with a gay in it.
Not anymore. Because of the internet, all it takes is one person remembering some bad move from someone else to shitcan the project. The terminally online never forget.
Weird that they didn't, they've cancelled other films with far less issues.
Strange World didn’t fail because it had a gay in it. It failed because it wasn’t good and no one wanted to watch it.
And it should have been canceled for that, not for the gay thing.
>told him the movie was too polarizing and not up to Disney’s quality standards
This is absolutely true.
Also the polarizing factor isn't just the gay lead but also the environmental message and how it resolves the issue (just give up all your technological advances bro!).
>pretending it was the single gay kid character that bombed the movie
>not the repulsive grubhubian art style and boring story
>Catz, who was on former President Donald Trump’s transition team, told him the movie was too polarizing and not up to Disney’s quality standards
What even the hell? Chapek's not hiring the best people.
She was absolutely right though. Any social conservative would not take their kids/grandkids to see that movie and it was an absolute shitshow.
Maybe that's the trick. Have a Conservative in the advisory board so your product can be sold to all ideologies.
Tokenization works, but do you know how easy it is to find a conservative amoung the rich buttholes they put on these boards? They are much better at shutting the frick up and just making money than the activist types are.
Safra Catz wasn't hired by Chapek.
She was officially on the board back in 2018 (the announcement was 2017), while Iger was still CEO:
https://thewaltdisneycompany.com/disney-board-elects-oracles-safra-catz-illuminas-francis-desouza-directors/
Why did they even FINISH it? Why let lgbt freaks make something you're 90% sure will tank? Can't you pull the plug once you see the script and designs?
Hey, ask Jennifer Lee why she didn't put the brakes on the project. She's more responsible for the loss than Iger or Chapek.
Why put women in charge of anything?? In everything they are allowed to do they prove to be morons at worst, mediocre at best in 99% of cases.
Some women are talented. That one woman clearly is not.
Most studio executives and industry veterans are old, out of touch, and clueless. They don't know what a good movie looks like anymore. They likely never knew. They stumbled through the golden age, reaping the rewards of more talented people doing the hard work and just assumed that everyone below them was interchangeable and replaceable. Now they've got nothing but inexperienced dullards and clueless hacks making trite, boring movies that are too ambitious for their own good and too shallow to make any sort of impact.
The gay character wasn't even a main character in the movie, why are you gays talking this much about gays? And if you hate gays so much, do you think there's a way to convert gays into normal people like yourselves?
Because this movie that should have been scrapped wasn’t scrapped and the company lost 200 million on it solely because they wanted to prove they are an “ally” and wouldn’t have twitter screaming how they are homophobic for cancelling a movie with a gay
I doubt people on twitter have that much power
Less to do with Twitter and more to do with people in Hollywood and internally at Disney
if they align with Twitter's views, then that shows Twitter has power. That's how power works.
So are people in 2040 gonna claim this is an underrated gem just like Atlantis and Treasure Planet? Because Atlantis was mediocre and Treasure Planet was merely decent
I can’t imagine anyone would. Atlantis and Treasure Planet are unique among Disney movies for trying to be straight-up adventures and appeals to people seeking that. As I pointed out here
Strange World is a movie that makes a point of undermining its own adventure aspect (and the drama it thinks it has). I can’t imagine who that would appeal to. It sucks as a comedy and sucks as an adventure. Who would that appeal to?
>2010: we have to pander the chinese!
>2018+: we have to pander to the LGBT!
why can't they just go back to make good movies instead of trying to be with what is politically correct at the time?
The movie failed because of bigger things like character design, marketing, and generally just looking lame to little Timmy or little Timmy's mom.
>too polarizing
People would forgive the gay shit if it was good.
>not up to Disney's quality standards
It was. That's the problem. With the exception of a few Pixar films, Disney hasn't been willing to experiment with their animated features since Lilo and Stitch. They even cancelled Nimona, which actually WAS experimental.
Are they implying that if they released it to Disney+ instead of theaters, they wouldn't have lost the 200 million dollars anyway? I guess they would be able to hide it bombing and claim that it's #1 on their streaming platform (new thing is most popular is a totally useful metric).
This movie was going to flop no matter what. It seems all the executives saw it but their politics prevented them from doing anything differerent, but the fact that everyone else who worked on it didn't immediately see it was a shitter probably are so far up their own buttholes in SJW nonsense that they thought it was going to be the next big blockbuster.
Streamers are becoming more transparent about their viewership numbers now that advertisers refuse to pay a heap for something they aren't sure whether or not the streamer is lying about.
>and not up to Disney’s quality standards. She warned a poor performance wouldn’t play well with the board.
And she was right. Why isn’t she in charge instead of Jennifer Lee?
She outranks Lee overall in the biz world. She's the CEO of fricking Oracle systems. She's a battleaxe of a republican. A rock solid financial math wiz, and her vegana is full of Kosher centipedes.
She's not a fricking employee you drag queen octopus fricker. She's a board member.
Read the article. Gay is only part of the issue. And the bigger issue is that Chapek was already having problems keeping the progressives at disney in line. Canceling the movie would make it look like he's bowing to Desantis.
You have to give Disney credit for designing characters that are extremely uncomfortable to look at. I don't think most people could do that even they tried.
They're also unmemorable. I've seen the movie and for the life of me, I can't remember any of their names.
Maybe Disney should work on movies that involve interesting characters and stories rather then just trying to appease LGBTQ and Intermix Family crowds.
i think the funniest thing about this is the outrage against disney's "don't say gay" shit was that it wasn't even their fault
it was just florida being florida and disney was just following orders
Disney wasn't heavily targeted at first, and it would have been entirely out of the news in a week
However, things changed directly when Dana Terrace, Matt Braly and Alex Hirsch started a harassment campaign to try and force Disney to go against this law, directly to Chapek, and that large influx of online crazies caused them to pick a side and start this mess
So those hundreds of millions of losses can be attributed to those three individuals
Pretty sure it wasn't just them. I'd imagine the whole DIE department turned on Chapek.
You forgot the guy that created the Ghost and Molly Mcgee.
It's not just them. It's also whom
is talking about, the Reimagine Tomorrow crowd
There's no problem with them trying to take on Desantis on their own time outside the company
Where they made the mistake was pressuring the Disney company itself to go against Florida. On the other hand there's rumors that Iger was behind-the-scenes goading the Reimagine Tomorrow people and such to do it, in order to tarnish Chapek.
Iger took a very open, anti desantis position, at that time. Iger encouraged this shit, at least he did before. We'll see what happens now that he's back in charge, and the chips are low.
Clearly she's a much better writer than executive and leader. But I doubt she's the only or even the primary failure here.
When is the last time Disney got a profit
>Atlantis, Emperors New Groove, Treasure Planet, and Home on the Range.
>Flopped
>Kills 2D animation
>Strange World, Lightyear, Raya.
>Flops
So the medium it uses doesn’t matter anymore does it?
Or is there a certain pattern that’s in Disney where a decade they park then a decade after they flop.
We hope there is a pattern, but we should point our fingers at Jennifer Lee.
It looks like that other movie with gay monsters that everyone forgot about and also flopped
Him being gay was BARELY a thing in the movie. Meanwhile his grandpa Jaeger Clade was one of the most Based Cinemaphile characters in years, using live piranhas as beard trimmers and teaching his grandson how to use a flamethrower five minutes after meeting the kid. And he wasn't a surprise villain! He was an ultra-masculine hero who at most learned not to try and force his son to be just like him.
"There's a gay kid" wasn't the problem.
The problem was that every minute Jaeger wasn't on-screen was boring as frick. Something something "strange wildlife" something something "protect the environment" something something "intergenerational trauma" and I just did not give a FRICK.
Maybe if they all didn't look like beady-eyed, big-nosed freaks, the movie would have done better.
That too. But one character in an ensemble cast being gay-but-only-in-a-couple-short-scenes wasn't what made the movie bomb or made Cinemaphile hate it. A main character in Paranorman was gay yeeeears ago and Cinemaphile's reaction was "that's amusing, his boyfriend's a lucky guy." Make a good movie and people won't give a frick if one of the characters Prefers The Company Of Men.
>Maybe if they all didn't look like beady-eyed, big-nosed freaks
All Disney characters look like that, dating back to the days of Walt.
No lmao. The "anime" art style you love so much is lifted directly from golden age Gisnep.
>The "anime" art style you love so much
Something that I never mentioned at all, schizo.
Clearly the movie needed more Jager and less...everything else.
If they are banning movies with same sex kisses from schools ban all kissing depictions. If America wants to be weird and fundie go ahead but don't be hypocrites about it.
>banning fetishism means you must also ban critical biological processes!
do homosexual death cultists really?