4 ms·

This is a giant corporation and calling this censorship isn't quite correct as that corporation can choose what they produce whether it's what the people they p

by smoyer 5y ago

This is a giant corporation and calling this censorship isn't quite correct as that corporation can choose what they produce whether it's what the people they pay as employees want or not. I tend to attribute this more to economics and publicity - if the job of the corporation is to maximize value for shareholders, it's entirely possible that they've determined that angering one side provides better profits than angering the other side. If making only LBGTQ+ movies earned them more money is that what they'd do? "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by greed" Edit: Now that I reread the article, it strikes me that the fact that Disney has LGBTQ+ employees might strengthen my theory.

tablespoon 5y ago
> ...if the job of the corporation is to maximize value for shareholders, it's entirely possible that they've determined that angering one side provides better profits than angering the other side. If making only LBGTQ+ movies earned them more money is that what they'd do? I think that interpretation is in the right direction, but a little off. I don't think this is about angering one "side" vs. the other, but rather creating movies that appeal to the broadest possible audience (e.g. angering no one). You can't please everyone, but it's better to be acceptable to 90% than 60%. I'd reckon that most parents who would be fine with "same-sex affection" in a children's movie are probably not bothered by the absence of it in a specific case. Disney wants to be synonymous with children's programming, and that probably means being quick to drop controversial themes and slow to include new ones. Honestly, if Disney did what "the LGBTQIA+ employees of Pixar, and their allies" want, all it would do is politically polarize the children's movie market and/or create an opening for a new company to become successful by copying Disney's current strategy.
jfengel 5y ago
Absolutely, it's about greed. It's about making sure that they can sell the movie in all markets, even the most homophobic ones. But I'd push back on the notion that their sole job is to maximize shareholder value. Their job is to do what shareholders want, which is not always the same as maximizing the price of the stock. Disney's heart is storytelling. That is why it is so beloved. It makes a ton of money merchandizing that storytelling, but it cannot make that money without the stories. When the limit the storytellers to a narrow band of life, the storytellers can't do what you hired them to do. That's not a direct connection to the money. Rather, it's a matter of gutting the heart of the corporation, destroying what makes the company beloved. It won't blast their shares this quarter, but gradually turns the company into a shell, and leaving it open to some other competitor to tell the stories that they won't.
- smoyer 5y ago
  Well, I remember a time when Disney was producing nothing that appealed to viewers and I'd argue that the parent company "lost it's heart" back then. Purchasing Pixar was the influx of "new heart" that relaunched their popularity. Buying rights to the Star Wars and Marvel stories has reconnected the company to the hearts of those who grew up with the nostalgia for those storied brands.

by smoyer 5y ago

tablespoon 5y ago

> ...if the job of the corporation is to maximize value for shareholders, it's entirely possible that they've determined that angering one side provides better profits than angering the other side. If making only LBGTQ+ movies earned them more money is that what they'd do? I think that interpretation is in the right direction, but a little off. I don't think this is about angering one "side" vs. the other, but rather creating movies that appeal to the broadest possible audience (e.g. angering no one). You can't please everyone, but it's better to be acceptable to 90% than 60%. I'd reckon that most parents who would be fine with "same-sex affection" in a children's movie are probably not bothered by the absence of it in a specific case. Disney wants to be synonymous with children's programming, and that probably means being quick to drop controversial themes and slow to include new ones. Honestly, if Disney did what "the LGBTQIA+ employees of Pixar, and their allies" want, all it would do is politically polarize the children's movie market and/or create an opening for a new company to become successful by copying Disney's current strategy.

jfengel 5y ago

Absolutely, it's about greed. It's about making sure that they can sell the movie in all markets, even the most homophobic ones. But I'd push back on the notion that their sole job is to maximize shareholder value. Their job is to do what shareholders want, which is not always the same as maximizing the price of the stock. Disney's heart is storytelling. That is why it is so beloved. It makes a ton of money merchandizing that storytelling, but it cannot make that money without the stories. When the limit the storytellers to a narrow band of life, the storytellers can't do what you hired them to do. That's not a direct connection to the money. Rather, it's a matter of gutting the heart of the corporation, destroying what makes the company beloved. It won't blast their shares this quarter, but gradually turns the company into a shell, and leaving it open to some other competitor to tell the stories that they won't.

smoyer 5y ago
Well, I remember a time when Disney was producing nothing that appealed to viewers and I'd argue that the parent company "lost it's heart" back then. Purchasing Pixar was the influx of "new heart" that relaunched their popularity. Buying rights to the Star Wars and Marvel stories has reconnected the company to the hearts of those who grew up with the nostalgia for those storied brands.