The Rank Hypocrisy of Disney Management

[PragmaticIdealist]

The statement Disney released today used the words, "relevant" and "inclusive." But, evidently, that inclusiveness does not apply to L.G.B.T. people.

Disney has never made any feature film with an L.G.B.T. protagonist, and two Disney+ Original series, which would have both had such characters, were cancelled before they even reached the service.

Disney's L.G.B.T. audience, as well as the L.G.B.T. talent Disney needs to stay in business, are coming to the realization that token representation is all the company intends to offer and that this representation will be promptly and easily removed in certain markets because Disney prefers this censorship to losing access to these places.

[PragmaticIdealist]

For a variety of reasons, many people will not be renewing Disney+, and the decision to shove "Love, Victor" onto Hulu is just one among the grievances.

I made the mistake of buying three years in advance, but I've been dissatisfied, myself.

The service seems like it is being run by Ned Flanders.

[Patty Paulson]

Gallup Pole put LGBTQ in the U.S as 4.5%. Disney programs to where the most $$ is and that is Non-LGBTQ at 95.5%. Just good business.

[Mr Wiggins]

NBC: Disney CEO shuts down anti-LGBTQ critic

"The CEO of the Walt Disney Company shut down an LGBTQ critic who claimed that the company is losing money because its products 'promote LGBT ideology.'

During a shareholding meeting Wednesday, Caroline Farrow, an anti-LGBTQ activist, asked Disney CEO Bob Chapek if it was 'perhaps time to see what you can do to make Disney more family friendly' and 'safe for people around the world, not just one minority' given that the company's stock price has recently plummeted.

She also brought up concerns that the more than 400,000 people who signed a petition asking Disney to avoid hosting Pride events were not being heard.

Chapek, who replaced Bob Iger as CEO of Disney last month, dismissed Fallow's objections in his response, stating that Disney believes in reflecting the diversity of its fanbase in its creative content. He added that producing inclusive projects will only become an increased priority for the company in the future."


BBC: Disney promises LGBT 'commitment': 'We want to represent our audience'

"Disney has promised to continue making films and TV shows with "an increased commitment" to diversity in its output, according to its boss Bob Chapek.

'We want to represent our audience,' he said at a meeting for the company's shareholders this week. 'We want to tell stories that our audience wants to hear, that reflects their lives.'

He was responding to a question about LGBT characters in their films and pride events at theme parks.

There will be a transgender character in a future Marvel film, and upcoming superhero movie The Eternals will introduce Marvel's first openly gay lead character to cinema screens.

There has been some criticism recently after Disney moved the Love, Simon spin-off series from the Disney+ streaming service to Hulu, which it also owns. Called Love, Victor, the show is a based on the film and is about a teenage boy who comes out as gay at high school.

Variety reported that it wouldn't fit in with 'family-friendly' shows on Disney+. Hilary Duff recently appeared to suggest the Lizzie McGuire reboot is on hold for a similar reason. A gay character was planned to appear in the revival of the Disney star's show.

Other shows on the streaming service do feature gay characters."


LA Times: Why token LGBTQ representation in Disney films isn't enough

"'Onward' features an openly LGBTQ character and that’s a big deal — for a Disney film. Directed by Dan Scanlon, the Pixar production... is set in a fantasy world where magic has become obsolete. Its residents include elves, fairies, centaurs, manticores and at least one cyclops....

It’s a historic moment for Disney, which for years has been called out for its dearth of identifiably LGBTQ characters in its films. According to media advocacy group GLAAD, Walt Disney Studios has had the weakest history of LGBTQ inclusion on screen out of all the major film studios the group has been tracking since 2012....

At a time when audiences are seeing increasingly meaningful representation in family-friendly TV shows, the tiny moments in Disney films are especially exasperating because they almost appear to be erasable by design....

Disney’s TV shows are frequently more LGBTQ-inclusive than Disney movies. The Disney+ series 'High School Musical: The Musical: The Series' introduced the franchise’s first gay love story last year. 'Andi Mack' featured Disney Channel’s first coming-out story line, which earned it a GLAAD Media Award in 2018. And though the upcoming 'Love, Simon' spinoff 'Love, Victor' has been moved from Disney+ to the more adult-oriented Hulu, the decision is reportedly due to its 'general sexual exploration' and not for its LGBTQ content.

Some upcoming Disney titles suggest that at least one arm of the studio is moving in a more inclusive direction. The MCU’s upcoming 'The Eternals,'” slated for release in November, will feature an openly gay superhero who is married and has a family. The married couple will even reportedly share a kiss in the film. And it’s expected that Tessa Thompson’s Valkyrie will be looking for her queen in 2021’s 'Thor: Love and Thunder.'"

[Mr Wiggins]

Gallup Pole put LGBTQ in the U.S as 4.5%. Disney programs to where the most $$ is and that is Non-LGBTQ at 95.5%. Just good business.

Entertainment-brand business isn't only about marketing for where the numbers are, but also where the numbers are heading. Which is why Disney will increasingly include more LGBTQ presence in various of its products (although its PR hype is likely to advertise more than is actually delivered at any given moment in time).

[Karalora]

Gallup Pole put LGBTQ in the U.S as 4.5%. Disney programs to where the most $$ is and that is Non-LGBTQ at 95.5%. Just good business.

There are a few things assumed by this statement that I think you'll find are not the case.

Firstly, that the poll is in fact accurate to the numbers of LGBTQ+ people in the U.S. 4.5% looks shockingly low to me, and I would be interested to know where exactly the poll was conducted and how it was worded, to give that result.

The second assumption is that only members of the LGBTQ+ community themselves are interested in, or even tolerant of, LGBTQ+ content in television and film, and literally everyone else will be actively turned off by it and take their business elsewhere. I think that's obviously not true. You don't have to be to support people and be happy when they get media representation.

The third assumption is that the people addressed by this poll and Disney's target market are the same thing. Disney typically courts the youth market, and the younger the generation, the more of its members self-identity as LGBTQ+.

If you've got a good chunk of time to watch, this video provides a good summary of coding and representation in Disney products, and why the LGBTQ+ community is so often dissatisfied with the results:

[Patty Paulson]

Karalora: You asked "Firstly, that the poll is in fact accurate to the numbers of LGBTQ+ people in the U.S. 4.5% looks shockingly low to me, and I would be interested to know where exactly the poll was conducted and how it was worded, to give that result." Here is the link, You are welcome. https://news.gallup.com/poll/259571/...opulation.aspx

[Mr Wiggins]

Karalora: You asked "Firstly, that the poll is in fact accurate to the numbers of LGBTQ+ people in the U.S. 4.5% looks shockingly low to me, and I would be interested to know where exactly the poll was conducted and how it was worded, to give that result." Here is the link, You are welcome. https://news.gallup.com/poll/259571/...opulation.aspx

Anti-LGBTQ right-wingers love to cite that year-old (and often disputed) Gallop poll to justify discrimination against LGBTQ people. They're sweating the upcoming 2020 Census, when 'way higher numbers will be revealed.

[Jar.Jar.Abrams]

A Gallup poll is wrong, but the Scientific brilliance of MiceChat members is spot on accurate.

Imperious is thick in here.

[MrGoat]

The key words in the Gallup poll seem to be 'self-identifying.' This is my opinion, based on anecdotal evidence, but any LGBTQ person knows how scary coming out of the closet is. The fact is, there are many, many LGBTQ people out there who don't openly self-identify, for countless reasons. I don't think non-LGBTQ people are quite as aware of that.

I'll admit, the 25% number is probably high, but the 4.5% number is probably low, with equal probability. The truth would obviously be somewhere in between. LGBTQ people constitute a significant part of the Disney target audience.

Also, sexuality -at least among the young people I deal with- is increasingly flexible. I know more who identify as 'pansexual' than 'gay' or 'lesbian' or 'trans', '', or 'bi.' And 'pansexual' isn't an option in most polls.

[Right Down Broadway]

Anti-LGBTQ right-wingers love to cite that year-old (and often disputed) Gallop poll to justify discrimination against LGBTQ people. They're sweating the upcoming 2020 Census, when 'way higher numbers will be revealed.

Mr. Wiggins, I did the on-line census a couple months ago, and I don't recall there being a sexual orientation question.

[Patty Paulson]

Kara: "Firstly, that the poll is in fact accurate to the numbers of LGBTQ+ people in the U.S. 4.5% looks shockingly low to me, and I would be interested to know where exactly the poll was conducted and how it was worded, to give that result". That is the point of the Poll, and also the title. That we over estimate the number of LGBTQ. If you sincerely want to know the particulars, click on the link and read. I't all there. Mr Wiggins: "Anti-LGBTQ right-wingers love to cite that year-old (and often disputed) Gallop poll to justify discrimination against LGBTQ people." Often disputed? Yes. by people who disagree with it. And what does it matter that it is a year old? The Gallup people have been conducting scientific research and polls since 1935. They are one of the few research companies that are accurate and unbiased with their poll questions. Nobody says anybody has to believe the data, but it is there and it is accurate, and it is what companies and advertising forms use.

[Mr Wiggins]

Kara: "Firstly, that the poll is in fact accurate to the numbers of LGBTQ+ people in the U.S. 4.5% looks shockingly low to me, and I would be interested to know where exactly the poll was conducted and how it was worded, to give that result". That is the point of the Poll, and also the title. That we over estimate the number of LGBTQ. If you sincerely want to know the particulars, click on the link and read. I't all there. Mr Wiggins: "Anti-LGBTQ right-wingers love to cite that year-old (and often disputed) Gallop poll to justify discrimination against LGBTQ people." Often disputed? Yes. by people who disagree with it. And what does it matter that it is a year old? The Gallup people have been conducting scientific research and polls since 1935. They are one of the few research companies that are accurate and unbiased with their poll questions. Nobody says anybody has to believe the data, but it is there and it is accurate, and it is what companies and advertising forms use.

Regardless, the point of your original post remains the same, namely, that LGBTQ people deserve less concern from Disney because they constitute such a small minority. Arguments over the specifics of numbers aside, you clearly are citing statistics to support an anti-LGBTQ agenda.

[monster heck]

I made the mistake of buying three years in advance, but I've been dissatisfied, myself

So if you did the 3 year deal like I did, you probably paid something like $145, right? $48p/yr. $4 p/mo. $.14 a day.

At bare bones worst, you have an incredible library at your fingertips, even if they didn’t add one single thing on day 2.

[Jord]

Disney is only inclusive when it makes money.
That's why they downplay parts by black actors in foreign countries while at the same time saying BLM matters. They matter, but not if it means losing money.

[Patty Paulson]

Mr. Wiggins: "Arguments over the specifics of numbers aside, you clearly are citing statistics to support an anti-LGBTQ agenda." Only in your mind. The numbers are important because that is what actual business people use when deciding where to invest corporate money. They invest money to get an acceptable return on that investment. Of only 5% of the target audiance is LGBTQ and 95% is not, they will not spend $$ on 5%. They will target that 95%. Has nothing to do with "anti LGBTQ agenda. It has to do with sound business.

[Mr Wiggins]

John Boyega calls Disney out for marketing a Black character, only to ultimately push them aside

"(CNN) - When Disney first revealed John Boyega as a stormtrooper in 'The Force Awakens,' he immediately became the target of racist comments from 'Star Wars' fans protesting the casting of a Black person in the role.

Now, six years later, with the latest trilogy completed, Boyega is speaking up about his time working on the franchise. And understandably, he doesn't seem too happy.

'What I would say to Disney is do not bring out a Black character, market them to be much more important in the franchise than they are and then have them pushed to the side,' he said in an interview with GQ UK that was published Wednesday.

Boyega was referring to his character Finn, a former Stormtrooper who played an important role in the first movie of the latest reiteration of the beloved franchise, but then largely became more of a background character as the following films focused more on Rey and Kylo Ren, played by Daisy Ridley and Adam Driver.

And he said he wasn't the only one cast aside. It was every person of color involved in the movies, including Naomi Ackie, Kelly Marie Tran and Oscar Isaac, he said....

Boyega mentioned the death threats he received over his casting and the calls by some fans to boycott the film because of him. 'Nobody else had that experience,' he said.

The interview has made waves online, with many praising Boyega, and others joining him in calling out Disney.

'I hope Hollywood gives John Boyega a franchise worthy of his talents now,' said comic book author G. Willow Wilson.

'Disney promoting John Boyega like he was going to become a Jedi and then making him a side character is a good reason for us to all get mad,' one person on Twitter wrote, along with the promotional images featuring Boyega holding a light saber."

[Magic1]

Percentage of U.S. residents is one factor, but does that number also ignore those sympathetic to the LGBTQ+ community? Add family and friends who would not object to seeing more characters reflecting the LGBTQ+ communities and that number is certainly higher than 5%. Disney is probably 'growing' their audience through TV shows that are more inclusive so that audience will be more accepting/supportive of larger budget film projects later. This could take patience and time.

As for the business side, should your thoughts be limited to just one country? There are real concerns to overcome with regards to global box-office potential, and that may very well drive some decisions regarding race or expressed orientation and behavior of characters. Not everyone in the world has pushed equality and acceptance as far as the U.S. has.

"Disney" is also considered a safe brand and, like it or not, safe-branded entertainment companies have a hard time pushing boundaries in an increasingly polarized world and they can't endure the sweeping financial consequences of being too bold. Maybe the focus should be on opportunities for representation coming from a Disney-owned brand like 20thCF. As pointed out before, Marvel is already moving forward.