jaybuck43

You're just being literal. I know two brothers who would call it "Enhanced Negotiating Tactics".

Very interesting that you omit a VERY key word from your sentence of Larry's quote. Your quote: In the same sentence he says "If you don't achieve these levels of impact, your compensation can be impacted." Larry's quote: "What we're doing internally, If you don't achieve these levels of impact, your compensation can be impacted." He's talking about forcing change ON THEMSELVES. Not on outside companies. That's why people refer to your view on ESG and Blackrock as conspiratorial.

As I said, the stories have not gotten out, and I will not be getting sued LOL

There are some additional issues that have not become public yet and I am not sure if they will. But the main one was that Iger believed that Chapek would keep his personal views more in check so as to not rock the apple cart. He... didn't. This caused A LOT of friction amongst those executives. Disney has done a very good job keeping this story contained.

He stayed on as Executive Chairman, part of why he didn't vacate his office. In his mind, Chapick was running the day to day while he oversaw the company. But, since he was still "there" he wanted to retain his office. Disney+ was absolutely iger's baby. Same with fox (I don't think he overpaid to be honest). The Marvel's was greenlit by Iger in principle (i.e. lets do a sequel) but I mean thats a no brainer when a film does 1.138 billion global box. Official development was done entirely under Chapek.

No he said "I went forward in time, to view alternate futures." 0:36 timecode.

Where I think some are coming from on this aspect are the fact that some feminists are judgmental/condescending about people who WANT to live a lifestyle seen as "traditional" (i.e. being a stay at home mom). Take a look at Rachel Zegler's comments about Snow White. Nothing wrong with saying women shouldn't HAVE to depend on a man/believe in their true love etc. There is something wrong with not wanting people to be like that. Allow for choice,

Technically he didn't see the future. He used the time stone to live through 14,000,000 timelines and see what happens. The Eye of Agamotto causes the passage of time.

Found this to be interesting. Here are the gender breakdowns of 4 ticket going audiences in superhero films., which is basically on point with the numbers I put up in a previous post (i.e. a theoretical 100 person theater would be 62/38 male/female). In actuality, for these 4 films it was closer to 60/40.

Seems about 10% of US population uses dating apps. (this would include married people using apps for cheating purposes, but my 10% excludes under 18s because yea, that's probably a federal crime.

You can write in the snow too sha, just requires either some really good hip movement... or a funnel.

There has only ever been one Space Jam. LeBron doesn't act in movies.

ESG is not an investment vehicle. It's an investment strategy. The concept behind ESG scores is that investors are more likely to get a better return on investment from companies who have embraced long term issues and planned for them. For instance Apple relies heavily on Rare Earth for its iPhones, whose sales make up 52% of their revenue. 70% of rare earth comes from China. This means that Apple is heavily reliant on China and must maintain good relations to ensure continued delivery. How do you reflect this issue (and how Apple deals with it) in their annual report? How can investors know about this? So you create a score based off some metric you design. OK Apple has a bunch of former trade officials working for them in a government relations department? They get an "A". Samsung doesn't? They get an "F". Microsoft (they still make phones right?) has a government relations departments but fully staffed by Yale graduates? "C". Take all the various grades you've assigned and it generates a score. Voila. ESG. Theoretically (and so far in practice) a company with a higher ESG score SHOULD be a better investment long term, since they're clearly more risk adverse. But... it's chicken and the egg. Which came first? The argument is that ESG leads to changes in policies, when in actuality it's more likely that ESGs are REFLECTING changes in policies. To whit. As I said, it's about grading companies planned response to long term issues. So for instance, when #MeToo started, and there was a lot of talk about issues in the boardroom and lack of representation, the ISSUE becomes "hey companies might get bad PR for not having females, do you have a plan to address that?" ESG then kicks in and says "O, Disney has a plan for that, they get an A, Comcast doesn't have a plan for that they get an F". It's not ESG pushing this, but rather reflecting issues in society.

Your numbers are off a bit, it's not 20-25%. Weighted, it would be about a 12-14% difference. So your average theater of 100 people, would mean you're looking at 62 males 38 females (roughly). Obviously I don't have any data on "dragged to films". Though I am tempted to have a survey designed to do that. What I do have is attitude to seeing these films broken down by Gender. So you do see that women do go see superhero films even though they don't enjoy them, but so do males. Women just tend to do it at a slightly higher rate. But there is still a high percentage of women, 45% to be exact, who have a good interest in seeing these films. So going back to our hypothetical example of 100 persons in a theater, of the 38 women, maybe about 5 are dragged there against there will, while 4 men were done similarly, basically negating the issue of who was or wasn't dragged). What is also VERY important, is the percentage of women who have NO OPINION. 12% of female respondents don't know or have no option, which means they can be won over by advertising/a good attractive story. Men on the other hand either really want to go or really don't want to go, they're not likely to be swayed. Then there is the even more important question to ask. Who is Disney trying to attract? Your predominant movie going audience are young adults (12-30) so that's why Disney is going to care most about, and their attitudes. Gen Z and Millenials are your most interested generations while ALSO being the most likely to attend a film in general. Disney in turn is going to tailor the films to suit their sensibilities. Gen Z and millennials care more about representation, female empowerment etc. then GenX/Baby Boomers. So again, no real surprise here.

The first major announcements that Disney screwed up was when they fired Chapick, brought back iger, realized streaming was a bad bet, started trying to license to Netflix again, and fired a ton of people. Cutting their films is maybe 8th on the list?

The only thing that has flopped so far is the opening weekend. In 5 days its at $114 million. I would not be surprised at all if when things finish, Eternals is still worse. Especially since its budget was almost $100 million more. Billion dollar companies don't make knee jerk reactions. Iger did not wake up and read variety on Monday and start screaming "CUT FILMS, NO MORE WE'RE DONE". This was a decision weeks/months in the making.

Thanks. I use the same source when compiling my numbers, but dump their full data and resort based on ownership structure. They treat Focus and Universal as separate companies, even though they are all owned by Comcast.

You're right, no more steak, I want Beef Tagliata

Universal's ownership changes hands alot in the early years: 1996 $496,608,000 8.4% 2000 $1,110,845,000 14.5% 2001 $959,082,000 11.4% 2004 $893,570,000 9.5% 2006 $837,223,000 8.9% 2009 $824,628,000 8.4% 2013 $1,241,880,000 13.1% 2014 $1,128,050,000 10.98% 2015 $2,542,460,000 22.79% 2016 $1,675,050,000 14.87% 2017 $1,639,590,000 14.91% 2018 $1,928,700.000 17.15% 2019 $1,593,370,000 14.17% 2020 $304,200,000 21.9% 2021 $751,640,000 16.65% 2022 $1,693,500,000 22.88%

What data do you want?

I do, the entire US industry.

I just checked, those numbers are ONLY Universal, not including Universal owned subsidiaries (i.e. Focus Features). I include all subsidiaries.

Those numbers appear to be slightly off. For instance, 2022 I have $1,693,500,000 for a total of 22.88%

Question. Do you only go for Marvel/DC movies or do you see other stuff? Last movie I saw was Killers of the Flower Moon (it was meh, suffered from being too long in my opinion). I would say I see more non-superhero movies than super hero movies.

I like data. Not gut feeling, not beliefs, but hard data. Here are Disney's US box office receipts from 1996-2022, including their share of the US market by revenue. These numbers are not adjusted for inflation and are how much they made in that year. 1996 $1,241,520,000 21% 2000 $1,463,251,000 19.1% 2001 $1,497,514,000 17.8% 2004 $1,533,178,000 16.3% 2006 $1,523,934,000 16.2% 2009 $1,138,772,000 11.6% 2013 $1,488,360,000 15.7% 2014 $1,519,920,000 14.8% 2015 $2,495,660,000 22.38% 2016 $2,877,990,000 25.55% 2017 $2,378,860,000 21.64% 2018 $3,045,480,000 27.08% 2019 $4,410,230,000 39.22% 2020 $178,400,000 12.8% 2021 $1,158,300,000 25.7% 2022 $2,250,790,000 30.41% Now, look at these numbers. Disney has always been a billion dollar box office behemoth. They are ALMOST always the number 1 box office share in the US going back more than two decades. Disney has been engaged in ESG for well over 20 years. In fact you can read their Corporate Responsibility Reports going back to the early 2000s. Their embrace in those beliefs did not in any way change or "hurt" them. As someone on here said, the math is not complicated. Growth the entire period Disney has embraced ESG concepts.