> ...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

> ...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.