The Disney Adults

Disney recently announced their upcoming real estate project. Dubbed “Disney Adults”, it’s slated for Coachella Valley, California in the next few years. This news, naturally, lit the internet on fire. But it also reignited discussions about Disney as a corporation, and whether or not they’re becoming dystopian. So, naturally, part of that was how Disney fans were “part of the problem”.

I’ve made no secret of my fondness of Disney’s creative side. I don’t like their corporate aspect, but their entertainment’s pretty reliable. Still, I can distinguish between the corporate and creative components, as a lot of the issues I have with them I also have with every corporate entity. This announcement’s another example of that. It’s also why this debate about “supporting the evils of Disney” by watching their movies bugs me.

See, Disney isn’t a collective hive-mind. They have subdivisions, like Walt Disney Pictures, Walt Disney Animation, Pixar, Marvel, Star Wars and, most-recently, 20th Century Studios. This doesn’t include TV, which also has subdivisions. Their different arms allow for many different projects in a given year. It’s why you can have three animated movies, nine MCU products, three Star Wars shows and various other excursions in one year, as they’re all worked on separately. It might be overly-efficient, but it’s how The House of Mouse operates.

I mention this because a lot of their entertainment’s quite good. I enjoy movies from Pixar, Marvel and Star Wars, while the Disney proper films, especially lately, are also solid. They’re not perfect, but they feel genuine. There are artists and visionaries working on them, and they know how to work under the same, larger umbrella. That last part needs emphasizing.

Disney’s corporate ventures, however are more…questionable? Ignoring the Fox merger, Disney’s made business decisions that’ve raised eyebrows. It’s worth noting that most of their revenue doesn’t even come from entertainment, but rather their parks, cruise ships and, in this case, real estate. It’s why they pushed for their parks to reopen during the pandemic, despite it not being safe. Disney’s an empire, and entertainment’s but one facet of that.

If this sounds daunting, it shouldn’t be. Or, rather, it should be, but there’s little we can do. Yet while corporate Disney’s a constant headache, creative Disney isn’t as much. Which is why comparing liking Disney to endorsing slavery, something that I’ve actually seen, is jarring. Disney may have a history of racism, but slavery became illegal in The US roughly 36 years before Walt Disney’s birth. Like all those shameless Holocaust comparisons, the slavery claim doesn’t make sense.

It's not like I’m excusing Disney, though. Whether it’s Dumbo’s crows being Jim Crow performers, Peter Pan dedicating a song to mocking Native Americans, or even recent issues like the Arabs in Aladdin, the company has plenty of red in their ledger. But while these portrayals are inexcusable, you shouldn’t damn the creatives who work on these films for a living. Nor should you make slavery comparisons, especially when no one from the time of slavery can call you out.

I also think the animosity toward adults who like Disney is unhelpful. True, Disney shouldn’t be the only part of their identity. But in the same breath, liking stuff from your childhood is fine. Not everything you enjoyed as a kid is bad, and some holds up better than the content aimed at grownups!

While I disapprove of the decision to start a real estate venture in California, especially when many people can’t afford houses, and worry about the long-term implications, the resurfaced discourse about the Disney corporation isn’t necessary. Or if it is, it’s overblown. You don’t need to look long or hard to find issues with Disney, they exist. But using that as an excuse to slam people who like their films and shows, even if you mean well, is unhelpful. Life’s tough and gruelling, and people should be allowed escapism. If that’s a “crime”, then arrest and take me in for questioning.

*****

A quick update for all of you: you might’ve noticed that my output for this year has increased from last year. The reason for why is simple: I have less stress weighing me down. Last year I started a new job, and it diverted much of my focus. This year, despite the job still going, I have a better handle on my life-work balance, so I can focus more on my writing.

Still, I don’t want to push myself too hard, so I’m setting limits. Not strict ones, like last year, but enough that I don’t burn out. My goal is to publish content whenever it comes to fruition, and to not force it. That might mean that my monthly output will fluctuate regularly, but I’ll try to be consistent. I owe that to myself.

That’s it for now. I hope you enjoy 2022, and I’ll see you next time!

Quit Jerkin' Me Around!

How’s Disney+ been treating you? I haven’t subscribed yet, I can’t afford another streaming service right now, but it seems to be a big hit…outside of lacking certain titles. And cropping shows. And how it crashed on launch day. Come to think of it, is it worth getting Disney+ right now?

Either way, for as happy as I am that people are talking about The Mandalorian (no spoilers!), I’m a little miffed at the anti-Disney snark floating around the internet again. To be fair, anti-Disney snark’s nothing new. And I’m not innocent, either. But in light of the critiques, I have to wonder if a lot of this is reactionary or toxic. (It’s probably both.)

Now, I grew up on Disney content. I was born in 1990, during The Disney Renaissance, so it was easy viewing material. I remember wearing out my VHS tape of The Little Mermaid from overwatch, and many of my VHS covers have bite-marks from young me chewing on them. I still have a Perdita plushie from when I was 4, and she’s seen lots of love. I even remember seeing Toy Story in theatres at a birthday party, and it made an impact. In short, Disney was a big part of my childhood!

I mention this not to sound biased, though I probably am, but to understand where I’m coming from. Disney was a part of my formative years, and even now I enjoy much of their output. But I’m not a blind fan. I don’t worship the ground they walk on, and I’ve been critical of their business decisions. I’ve even avoided movies they’ve made that didn’t interest me, including many of their recent live-action remakes. So when I mention “Disney snark”, it’s not like I don’t understand it.

That said, it still bums me out that so many people are vehemently anti-Disney. And not in a “Disney’s a monopolistic corporation” kind of way, though that’s true. I’m talking in a “Disney’s a monopolistic corporation, therefore you shouldn’t support them” kind of way. Also, I’m talking in a “Disney’s a monopolistic corporation, so we’re gonna make you feel miserable for supporting them” kind of way. Both of those attitudes aren’t only unhelpful, they’re actively harmful.

And I hear them constantly. Whenever Disney exceeds, it leads to a reminder that they’re evil. Whenever they swallow another entity, there are guilt trips lobbed at fans for being “part of the problem”. And whenever they fail, the “Karma Police” are on full-force. It’s never-ending.

Why are so many of the anti-Disney individuals self-righteous anyway? So Disney’s shady? I’ve got news for you: all corporations are. So Disney’s made decisions that’ve been “wrong”? Again, so have all companies. It doesn’t mean blindly defending the firing of James Gunn over old Tweets he’s long since apologized for, but it doesn’t mean that I’m Satan for still watching MCU films. There are more-effective ways of expressing your frustrations than making people miserable.

Also, what happened to “There’s no ethical consumption under Capitalism”? If everything we consume is mired in some form of dishonesty, then shouldn’t that apply to “purer forms of art” too? This doesn’t mean not advocating for change, but sitting back and condemning people who watch Disney media as a form of escapism doesn’t help your cause. If anything, you’re a jerk.

Look, life sucks. Work’s hard, politicians are corrupt, we’re depleting natural resources at an alarming rate, and attempts at advocating for change are met with disdain by those with power. Between fighting for equal rights and wanting a better tomorrow, we occasionally need to relax and recharge. Entertainment does that. And for many people, that’s in the form of Disney content. Why, then, are people making Disney fans feel guilty over that? Isn’t it hypocritical? Isn’t it self-righteous?

It’d be so much easier to improve the world if we stopped being jerks over stuff we have no control over. And yeah, Disney isn’t saintly. Between their monopolistic practices, their worker abuse, their constant attempts at whitewashing their shady past, their attempts at performative wokeness presently, or even how they had ties to The Trump Campaign, Disney has, and will continue to have, lots to answer for in their backlog. I won’t claim otherwise. But if we’re not on the same page about how people are still entitled to enjoy Disney content from-time-to-time, especially if it’s well-made, then why even bother fighting for change? What good will that do?

For as much as we strive to make the world better, we should never deprive people of their happiness. Whether it’s letting an activist buy a Starbucks drink, or letting people who can’t drive Uber to a union strike, or-yes-even letting people unhappy with the state of the film industry enjoy a Disney film, there’s enough anger that a little joy is needed too. So let someone have that, okay? Life’s way too precious for people to be dicks, even over Disney content.

Wreck-it Ralph 2: Disney Wrecks Itself?

The newest trailer for Wreck-it Ralph 2 hit the internet this past weekend, and people went nuts over it. For some, the scene with the Disney princesses in their casual-wear was hilarious, highlighting how great it is that the movie even features them at all. For others, it was a reminder that Disney’s milking their brand to their detriment. Basically, opinions were mixed.

Which leads to a concern I have about Disney’s business practices of late and how they’ve been perceived by cinephiles. I say everything out of respect, as I’ve grown up with Disney since I was about 3 years old. Many of their films hold a place in my heart, and quite a few are classics for a reason. So if I sound like I’m being a little bitter about the criticism, it’s only because I care.

Anyway, I like Disney. Their Pixar division has made some of the best animated films, or films in general, to ever exist, and I’m sure they’ll continue to surprise me. Their general animation division, though all-over qualitatively, is pretty solid, with some entries being masterpieces. Their Marvel output has consistently entertained, even challenging the perceptions of what comic book movies can be occasionally. And while it might annoy some of you to say this, I’ve really enjoyed their Star Wars output. Only the live-action remakes have turned me off, though, even then, there’ve been a few gems too.

I mention this because there’s a growing sentiment that modern-Disney lacks sincerity, especially with their recent trend of self-deprecating humour. Disney, as we’re well-aware, owns Marvel, Star Wars and The Muppets, and are soon to fully-acquire 20th Century Fox’s film division. Their roster of content is, to say the least, impressive. Which is all the more concerning that they’ve started flaunting it while simultaneously mocking it, as if that’s enough to keep people distracted from their questionable business practices. And while I wish it were only smoke-and-mirrors, I’d be dishonest if this didn’t bother me too.

The best way to tackle this is to trace the company’s origins. A lot of the detractors of modern-Disney point to Walt himself and his approach film. Walt, they claim, was an artist, strived to make art first, and would often prefer passion over money. This reflects in the output of his company while he was alive: masterpieces like Fantasia, which pushed the medium of film to its limits in 1940, wouldn’t be made today, while live-action classics like Mary Poppins, which came out late in Walt’s life, were so ambitious that nothing could top them now. The arguments for Walt Disney as an artist are really compelling, and it’s easy to think of him that way if you’re unfamiliar with their history.

See, Walt was…well, a capitalist. He may have feigned the illusion of being a cheery uncle, something Saving Mr. Banks touched on, but he was often cold and unsympathetic. Stories of his authoritarian stranglehold on artists are well-known in the animation world, and his workers went on strike at one point to demand better pay and working conditions. Walt was also known for cutting costs when it hampered profitability, as evidenced by his scale-back on animation funds following the financial flop that was Sleeping Beauty. Walt’s contributions to animation and film are immense, but he was never the saint some people claim him to be.

It’s worth understanding this because it re-frames the context behind Disney. While there’s no denying that anyone in film has money on their mind, for Disney it’s ingrained in their DNA. Disney doesn’t only make a fairy-tale because they have good stories to tell, but also because it’s a brand. Their decision to cater to a family market is because parents will pay money to see movies that’ll entertain their children. Even the themes in their films, which are incredibly general, are done so that they’ll net big bucks. Everything about Disney, right down to their marketing, is as much about money as art, perhaps even more so.

The one difference between Walt and his company is that Walt was, to be fair, occasionally experimental. He’d make safe bets like Cinderella, a typical fairy-tale, but he’d also try experimental work, like Fantasia, and films that tackled unique concepts, like Lady and the Tramp, when he felt there was the right budget and story. He was a businessman, yes, but he also did try new ideas that pushed the medium of film. This blend of financial success and artistic success kept Disney from going stale. Yet even after the Disney Renaissance in the late-80’s and early-90’s, following The Little Mermaid, money was still a primary drive for Disney.

It’s this desire to capitalize on a brand that explains why Disney’s become so tongue-in-cheek lately. Because audiences, whether they were aware of it or not, were becoming wise to Disney’s formula. We can argue nuances forever, and I won’t, but Disney saw that self-deprecation could net ticket sales; after all, if Shrek could make fun of Disney and work for Dreamworks, then why couldn’t Disney make fun of themselves too? Perhaps it’s too in-jokey and insincere for a company to knowingly mock their own brand, but it’s worked for them financially, so why not? It’s not like they’re a giant corporation willfully deconstructing their own nostalgia to-wait…

Yeah, that’s what people are concerned about: they can overlook Disney being edgy in their deconstruction of themselves, but not that they’re using it to distract from their uncomfortable decisions of late. This is the same company that fired James Gunn because of some Tweets he made almost 10 years ago on Twitter. This is also the same company that kept Roseanne Barr on a leash until a racist Tweet got her fired. And this is the same company that employs Johnny Depp and is dragging their feet on John Lasseter despite what we know about both. Add the Fox acquisition, and it's as if Disney’s overcompensating.

Does this mean that people suddenly can’t enjoy that scene? No. It might be over-indulgent and fan-service heavy, but there’s no denying its cute charm. Disney princesses, as we know, hold immense weight in pop culture. Having the veil lifted might, honestly, be more important than having them as stand-ins for agendas or themes. Besides, half of them were never that interesting to begin with!

I also think it’s cynical to deny people their right to enjoy this. The world is a scary place right now, and people need escapism. Regardless of the “cynicism” presented in Disney’s fan-service, it’s helping people to cope. That alone should be reassuring, no?

But if that’s doesn’t ease the tension, we can rest easy that this isn’t the whole movie. The trailers for the first film were also mediocre, but the end-result was quite decent. I’m sure this film will be too. And if not? Fine, but it’s not the end of the world.

Finally, I want to address the hardened cynics and ask them why they’re ruining other people’s fun. Art isn’t be-all-end-all, you can like something while recognizing its awfulness. If Disney’s bringing happiness to people, then let them be happy. If these movies end up being enjoyable, then let them be enjoyable. Because your energy can be much better-spent on other, more pressing concerns than constantly raining on someone’s parade!

Disney and "Wokeness"

There are many buzzwords in entertainment, both good and bad. Chief among them is “woke”. Whether or not you know what the phrase means, it’s been used to the point of overkill. Perhaps the biggest example is with The Disney Corporation, particularly their films. But is Disney, the poster child for family-friendly entertainment, really “woke”?

Full disclosure: there are other issues I’d rather concern myself with. For one, there are two major wars in The West right now, and there’s been plenty of misinformation about both. Two, more informed people have expressed their thoughts. And three, it’s exhausting. Yet since this won’t go away, and because leaving Twitter/X has made my Views take a hit, I have to drive up engagement. I hope I don’t regret it…

Gina Carano, who had a minor role in The Mandalorian, is suing Disney for $75000 over “wrongful dismissal”. I’d go into the minutiae, but it’s a headache. Besides, this article explains it better than I could. All I’ll mention is that Carano, who was fired in 2021 because of inappropriate Tweets, is being bankrolled by Elon Musk. That’s right, the biggest wildcard billionaire of all time. What could possibly go wrong?

I’m less surprised than tired. Carano hasn’t let this go, and she’s gained a weird fanbase that’s used her situation to gripe about Disney since. Whether it’s criticizing Kathleen Kennedy for “ruining Star Wars”, or even the “MSheU” nonsense, Carano’s found herself thrown into the mix. What’s worse, attempts at using reason are met with “Why are you defending a multi-billion dollar company?” responses. I’ve made no secret that I’m mixed on Disney, but I guess I’m playing defence now. Because I’m calling this bluff.

Let’s be clear: Disney’s not a woke company. At all. Ignoring their history of racism, or even their political scandals, Disney’s a corporation. Corporations are out to make money. Money, as anyone with a degree in finance can attest, isn’t inherently woke. If it were, CEOs would be donating their bonuses to charities.

Disney’s goal is to make products for consumers. In their case, families and children. That hasn’t changed since their inception. What has changed, however, is what defines “families and children”. Because demographics morph over time. What might’ve constituted a family’s evolved over the past century, and businesses have had to adapt. We’ve seen this in Disney’s approach to catering to minorities and different types of families. That’s a large chunk of their base.

Disney has other types of fans too. Following their acquisition of Marvel in 2009, they’ve acquired superhero fans. Following their acquisition of Star Wars in 2012, they’ve acquired Star Wars fans. Even following their acquisition of Indiana Jones-do you see the pattern? Disney’s attempts at consuming brands has landed them with an ever-growing and ever-diverse set of fans.

With this in mind, is it any wonder why Disney’s been making content to appeal to them too? Especially since these fans are diverse? It’s not so much that Disney’s “woke” as they are “smart” about branding. They’ve seen where the needle’s headed, and they’re catering to it. That’s the reality here, folks!

I don’t know what people want, other than to whine about the “Good Ol’ Days”. I like a lot of classic Disney films, don’t get me wrong! But they can’t and shouldn’t detract from newer ones. If that means changing or updating facets to appeal to racial and gender minorities, so be it! That doesn’t displace the backlog of content for those pining for those Good Ol’ Days, whatever that means…

That’s not what this is really about, though. Like the trend of calling pro-LGBTQ+ content “grooming”, claiming that Disney’s “woke” is a sign of detractors refusing to expand their mindsets. It’s no different than mass-purchasing something and destroying it to “prove a point”: the company gets the money, while you’ve wasted yours. Is that an efficient way of making your point known? I don’t think it is.

By claiming Disney’s “shoving wokeness” down people’s throats, detractors of Disney forget that they’re going where the money is. That’s what it is, money. It’s not even a sincere form of it either, such that queer communities have a name for it: Rainbow Capitalism. It’s progressive only because of money, not because it’s genuine. How’s that being woke, exactly?

I wish I could dedicate more energy here, but I can’t. So I’ll end with the following: you know how I mentioned that Gina Carano’s suing for “wrongful dismissal”? Keep in mind that Disney asked her multiple times to tone it down and apologize, something she’d refused to do. She was a brand ambassador for Disney, whether she wanted it or not, and she was let go for not upholding her end. That has less to do with wokeness than branding, something Disney cares deeply about. Essentially, I wish Carano the best at falling flat on her face…again.

Besides, if Disney were “woke”, then they wouldn’t have filmed the remake of Mulan near a Uyghur concentration camp. Something to think about.

Don't Say Disney

Disney’s been on the burner every few months recently. Whether it’s purchasing a major studio, firing and rehiring a director based on Tweets from a decade ago, or filming in a morally dubious location, they can’t catch a break. And they’re embroiled in controversy yet again. So let’s talk about it.

The US has been frustrating for some time. First Texas introduced a bill banning most abortions. Then they introduced regulations against trans students. If that wasn’t bad enough, books like Maus were banned in Tennessee for being “too controversial”. And now Florida’s been floating around unpopular legislation titled “Don’t Say Gay”.

I don’t have the patience to unpack the latter. You can read about it here. But it’s on its way to being reality, and people have spoken up. In particular, entertainment conglomerates have released statements expressing concern about the greater queer community. And then there’s Disney, who are non-committal about it. To quote a memo from CEO Bob Chapek:

“I do not want anyone to mistake a lack of statement for a lack of support. We all share the same goal of a more tolerant, respectful world. Where we may differ is in the tactics to get there.”

This is something! But it’s not what people wanted, so it drew backlash. In particular, it drew the biggest backlash from many Disney employees. It’s easy to see why: it’s a waffling response on a serious issue. If Disney wants respect, they need to do better.

It's also frustrating because this shouldn’t be controversial at all: gay marriage has been legal for almost 7 years in The US. Additionally, transgender protections in the workplace have been in place for a few years. Mass acceptance of LGBTQ individuals is growing. Ignoring that for something noncommittal is bad business.

Outside of that, this is an ethical issue. We often tout in business that “politics shouldn’t be discussed”, but that’s not always feasible. Being queer isn’t simply “politics”, it’s human dignity and health. LGBTQ individuals can’t “turn off” themselves, and attempts at that have resulted in unpleasant consequences. So yes, Disney has to take a stance.

You know what doesn’t help? That Disney has donated to Don’t Say Gay political supporters. Isn’t that technically taking a stance? They can claim to be neutral all they want, but money speaks. And it speaks poorly on Disney’s part.

I wouldn’t be so frustrated if this didn’t contradict Disney’s attempts at inclusivity in recent years. It’s true that the “first openly gay character” line has been thrown around for years, such that it’s now a running joke, but they really have made strides. They even had one of their characters in Eternals, Phastos, openly gay and in a same-sex relationship. They could be doing so much better, true, but it’s still something! So why throw that away over an unpopular piece of legislation?

This also bugs me because, ignoring my own struggles, openly-queer kids watch Disney’s content regularly. Yes, kids. Kids who long for sincere representation. And these same kids are at risk of harassment and humiliation if this bill passes. So Disney refusing to take a public stance, yet turning around and making one privately? That hurts.

What now? People have suggested a boycott of Disney products until they change their mind, but I’m not convinced that’ll work. For one, Disney owns more than simple media. They’re a megalith. And two, it’s practically impossible to fully avoid Disney. Even with the whole “piracy” suggestion being thrown around, which I take issue with for different reasons, as a way to circumvent Disney’s reach, the time to boycott Disney was 30 years ago, when they were much smaller than they are now. It’s too late in 2022.

I also don’t think it’s fair to hurt the employees at Disney over this response. Remember, Chapek’s one guy. He might be the captain of the ship, but he’s not the crew. And the crew isn’t monolithic, with many people, like I said, expressing frustration with this inconsistent stance. If anything, you’d be punishing them.

Besides, I doubt that this’ll be the end of this. Disney cares about their reputation, and we’ve seen through James Gunn’s firing that they’re not above reversing decisions if it impacts them. This could go the same way, which’d be good. Because it’s not a good look to talk neutrality, yet practice an actual stance.

In the meantime, I’m unhappy with this position. I think it’s dishonest, hypocritical and reflects poorly on the company. And while it’s true that Disney have a history of shady practices dating back to when Walt Disney was alive, that doesn’t excuse these practices now. Especially not when they have the capacity to right their past wrongs. I only hope they act on that capacity, as opposed to twiddling their thumbs.

If all else, this should serve as a wake-up call that Disney as a whole have too much power, and that someone needs to intervene. I doubt the latter will happen, but I can pray!

Disney's Failed Wish

Being a Disney nerd is like playing tug-of-war with myself. One day, I’m fighting for its right to make films. The next day, I’m chastising it for business practices I don’t approve of. And then there are days where I’m at a complete loss. I should be so blessed, right?

Anyway, Wish.

Disney’s 100 years old this year. It’s on all their advertising, and they’ve updated their logo too. Perhaps the most-blatant example’s with their latest movie, Wish. Meant as a send-up to their history, it also marks their first attempt at stylized CGI. It’s an admirable response to Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse, and it shows that even The House of Mouse is unafraid to experiment. I simply wish the end result had gone over better, as it’s giving voice to some of the absolute worst.

While chastising internet bozos for being creepy about Disney media isn’t new for me, I do think this particular instance feels especially dirty and dishonest. For one, this was a first attempt at new territory, much like Chicken Little in 2005. Like any first attempt, successful or not, there’ll be growing pains. And two, Wish’s reception being divided is ammo for bigots and naysayers to act like Disney’s dead without any evidence. Because Disney’s far from dead.

I’m worried because Wish’s reception validates a prediction I made when Elemental was in theatres: experimental animation’s the new frontier, but how long will it take before it’s a disappointment? The answer’s “not long”. It troubles me because the style’s relatively-new, and because it shows that something can’t be exciting based on its art-style alone. And while the latter should’ve been obvious, there’s a real fear Disney might learn the wrong lessons.

Perhaps it’s also a sign of Disney needing new leadership. Bob Iger might’ve returned as CEO to fix Bob Chapek’s mistakes, but he mishandled the writers’ and actors’ strikes. The company had already been bleeding with the pandemic, and the strikes hurt them more. I’m no analyst, but that the studio has yet to crack $1 billion globally with their releases this year sucks. Especially since they’re out to make money.

I don’t know what to think. Unlike many people, I’ve enjoyed much of Disney’s output these last few years. Ralph Breaks the Internet was a clever follow-up, and Frozen II had songs that were better than its predecessor. I also really liked Raya and the Last Dragon, and Strange World, while flawed, was a clever allegory on the dangers of fossil fuels. Disney, even focusing on their core lineup, has been far from a complete disaster…until now. Yet Wish still looks far more ambitious than some of Disney’s absolute lowest.

It's not even all the shameless self-flagellation that bothers me. Disney’s repertoire in the last few years has been on-the-nose with meta-references. The short film Disney released for their 100th anniversary, for example, was a circle-jerk of in-jokes. It even used archival footage of dead VAs so older characters could interact with newer ones. It was a reference-fest to an extreme, complete with Mickey Mouse thanking Walt Disney. All this for a photograph…

Yet people loved it! Clearly the problem isn’t the meta-humour or call-backs, but rather a lack of narrative cohesion. That’s what’s missed here, despite its villain being a jab at John Lasseter. Wish didn’t fail because of its looks, nor did it fail because of its references. It didn’t even fail because its lead heroine was black, contrary to what some claim. No, it failed because it wasn’t well-written.

Why’s this so hard to grasp? Why’s this a sign that “Disney’s dying”? Have you seen 70’s and 80’s Disney?! I have! Even on a good day it was nothing to sneeze at!

But that’s exactly it: Disney survived, however bleak and difficult. If they can survive the 70’s and 80’s, they can survive their current situation. And they can for sure survive the failure of Wish. It might be painful, but they’ll live. This is one misfire out of a massive backlog.

People need to stop claiming to be experts when they’re not. Like I’ve said, the movie industry’s cyclical and constantly evolving. What’s popular now may not be in a decade, we don’t know. That that hasn’t stopped people from calling Disney’s “dead” multiple times is annoying considering their closest moment to complete doom was before The Little Mermaid in 1989. They gambled their future on that movie’s success, and it paid off.

If that’s their lowest-low, this is nothing. Because Disney’s resilient and able to correct course. They did it in the 80’s, they did it in the late-2000’s, and they’ll do it now. They merely need the right guiding hand. And it’d be in their best interests to find it soon.

Which leads me back to Wish. Is it unfortunate that it’s not doing well? Yes, yes it is. Do I plan to see it eventually? Yes, yes I do. Does that mean Disney’s dead, though? No, no it doesn’t. Until naysayers are ready to admit that and change, they’ll forever earn my scorn for being unable to move on.

Axing Robin Hood

*Slides the “blogs gone without mentioning Disney” counter to zero*

I have a confession: I don’t care for Robin Hood. Specifically, I don’t care for the 1973 Disney movie, the one where the characters are anthropomorphized animals. I know it has a cult following with furries, and I get it. But for a movie about England’s legendary thief, it’s surprisingly boring and uninspired. It looks cheap, it sounds cheap and it feels hollow. It also falls into the trap many Disney animated movies of the 70s and 80s did, and I remember reading its director, Wolfgang Reitherman, was embarrassed to have his name attached (though I can no longer find the reference for that). I’m sorry if this offends anyone, but take it up with the megalith corporation.

On that note, I’ve never been hot on the live-action Disney remakes. I’ve seen a few, but most have felt like they were cashing in on brand recognition without the quality of the original material. Also, what’s wrong with those originals? Is it that they’re animated? What does Hollywood have against animated movies?

In February, it was announced that Disney’s management was shaking up, as CEO Bob Iger was stepping down (again). Replacing him was Josh D’Amaro, with Dana Walden as CCO. Iger was, in my opinion, divisive creatively, but he was good for Disney financially, so it’ll be interesting seeing what D’Amaro and Walden bring to the table. I don’t know enough about them, but surely they’ll bring some new life, right? I hope so!

Perhaps this new energy will show through Disney’s release schedule, which leads me to Robin Hood. According to insider reports, a live-action remake was slated for production, only to be scrapped alongside Bambi. This is interesting. As much as I don’t like Disney’s remakes, I get Bambi being remade: it’s a well-loved, critically-acclaimed movie about conservationism, which is perfect for modern moviegoers’ sensibilities. But Robin Hood? A movie that was never well-received, and was outdone in lacklustre quality by later adaptations, was getting a remake too?

Far be it for me to judge its fans. Furries are entitled to love movies too, and the Zootopia franchise has shown that Disney can do good by them. I also can’t be too bitter about Disney remaking it. They did justice to Pete’s Dragon, which had little going for it outside some impression animation from Don Bluth. But Robin Hood, a movie where the main character’s a talking fox for…reasons, doesn’t scream A-material to me. At least not as a 1:1 remake.

If we’re going by The Lion King, I don’t think it’s fair calling it “live-action”. Remaking a traditionally-animated movie in photo-realistic CGI isn’t live-action. There are no visible actors on-screen, all the “acting” is done with voice-overs. Unlike The Jungle Book, which had a real kid as Mowgli, all of the actors present used motion capture and were replaced with computers. That’s animation, and I’m tired of pretending it’s not.

Additionally, I’m not sure the premise would work with photo-realism. Say what you will about The Lion King, but the characters weren’t attempting human-like behaviour. Robin Hood, however, has the characters as stand-ins for humans. They wear human clothes, they talk like humans, they even stand upright. Unless Disney wanted a surrealist take ala Cats, I doubt it’d have happened without being creepy and a turn-off.

I don’t get why Disney would even want this. As ambitious failures from the 70s and 80s go, The Black Cauldron is a much better fit for a live-action remake. Not only is it based on a dark fantasy series, but live-action could do wonders should Disney take the Narnia approach. Especially since there’s an audience for that kind of movie. I’m not alone here, either.

By opting for a soulless cash grab, however, Disney would’ve soured people’s attitudes on their remakes even more. And yes, the live-action remakes aren’t supposed to be good. They’re meant to cash-in on cheap nostalgia for jaded adults who want to be 6 years old again. But that doesn’t mean Disney can’t put in effort. Nor does it mean they can’t be strategic about what they remake.

Basically, I’m not upset Walden axed this remake. No one wanted it, and it’d be another attempting at flushing money down the drain. By axing it, Disney now has the freedom to focus on ideas people are interested in. Like Pixar movies, original and sequels alike, as well as animated Disney musicals. That’s more interesting than a 1:1 retelling of a mediocre movie from the 70s.

I’m not an expert in movie-making. It’s possible the remake of Robin Hood would’ve ended up fantastic, I don’t know. I also don’t run Disney, so I have no power over their output. However, I’m glad this remake was scrapped. Especially since, from what I’ve gathered, audiences are becoming sick of Robin Hood movies, going by diminished returns.

I’m slightly more optimistic about Disney’s new leadership now. At least, creatively. It’s possible they’ll disappoint, especially since they have to appease shareholders, but this is a step in the right direction. And who knows? Maybe they’ll drag the studio out of their creative stagnation? Here’s hoping!

21st Century Disney?

Oh boy!

It seems like Disney’s trying to rule the world these days. It was only 30 years ago that, honestly, they were barely making ends meet. Now look at them: they’re a multi-billion dollar entity, absorbing everything they can get their hands on. Whether it’s their acquisition of The Jim Henson Company in the early-2000’s, their purchase of Marvel in 2009, their purchase of Star Wars in 2012, or their more-recent purchase of Indiana Jones, it’s like someone forgot to tell The House of Mouse to finish what’s on their plate before getting more food. Or, if someone has told them, they’re too busy being gluttonous to care!

I mention this in light of a recent development that broke. There’ve been many takes on it since, but it’s only fair to see the source: CNBC.

"21st Century Fox has been holding talks to sell most of the company to Walt Disney Co., leaving behind a media company tightly focused on news and sports, according to people familiar with the situation.”

To quote John Oliver from Last Week Tonight: HOLY SHIT!

This is a big deal. It’s a big deal because Disney’s a film-giant powerhouse in Hollywood, and it’s a big deal because Disney and 21st Century Fox are enemies in the world of film. To put it into perspective, when Disney purchased LucasFilm from George Lucas in 2012, for a mere $4 billion, 21st Century Fox held onto the unedited versions of the original films and immediately cancelled Star Wars: The Clone Wars out of spite. Fox has also stubbornly kept hold of the X-Men and Fantastic Four IPs, rushing out Fant4stic in 2015 to mess with Marvel’s ambitions of reacquiring all of its properties. So to see Fox talking to Disney, well…it’s huge.

Before we get carried away, allow me to clear something up. The big misconception is that this is official. It’s not; in fact, CNBC even mentions that “there is no certainty” that a deal has been agreed to yet. It’s still a big deal, but let’s not jump the gun. There’ll be plenty of time for that later.

I’m torn on this news. On one hand, this is exciting for film fans. Think of what this could mean: Fantastic Four getting a decent movie in The MCU! X-Men also joining The MCU! Disney getting The Planet of the Apes franchise! And, after years of begging, the unedited versions of the original Star Wars films can finally be ours in crisp-clear 4K! It’s a win for Disney!

On the other hand, I’m a little concerned, for a few reasons. For one, Fox is in serious trouble financially if this is happening. You might say that this a long time coming, but it’s sad that a studio in Hollywood is desperate enough that it’d come crawling to its rival for help. The implications are troubling if this is the case.

Two, Disney shouldn’t have a monopoly on film. I know they’re doing quite well for themselves at the moment, but I want them to continue to innovate too. History has shown that companies become complacent when they’re in the lead, and it’s especially bad when they have a monopoly. We always rail on companies like Fox for rehashing success stories, but their presence keeps Disney in-check.

Three, Disney won’t always be in top-form. They are now, but even as recent as the early-2000’s they were struggling. There was a time when their own animation studio was trying to stay afloat amidst the competition of Pixar and Dreamworks, and it showed in their output. Disney, in a nutshell, can always fail again. So to place all their eggs in one basket isn’t smart.

And four, I can’t help feeling like Disney’s biting off more than they can chew. This is the same corporation that’s launching two streaming services next year to compete with Netflix. This is the same corporation that also got itself into hot water this week with their decision to revoke The LA Times’s screening passes for future movies after they reported on one of their dirty secrets. Disney might be a giant, but they’re not infallible.

Besides, I feel uncomfortable with Disney owning everything. I can deal with The Muppets, Star Wars and Marvel being in their grasp, since they’ve done great stuff with all three, and Indiana Jones isn’t far-fetched either. But what would they do with X-Men that Fox hasn’t already done? Can they churn out an epic trilogy on-par with the recent Planet of the Apes movies? And if they ended up in control of Fantastic Four, something I’d be happy about, where would they take the IP?

I don’t mean to slam Disney. I like Disney. I don’t love them, but I like them. I like them enough to understand that they shouldn’t own everything simply because they can. That’s not success, it’s greed. And Lord knows we already have enough of that.

Still, like I said, the decision isn’t final yet, so there’s time to see what unfolds. Either way, I’m unimpressed, even though this appeals to my inner-film fan.

Kirk & Kimmel

I’ve largely kept my nose out of the situation surrounding Charlie Kirk. It’s not like I haven’t expressed my thoughts, but any statement will get me into trouble. While I recognize that Kirk was an awful human being, I also think the discourse surrounding him has become toxic. Essentially, while I’m disgusted that people are making him into a martyr, I’m equally disgusted that people are overlooking how he died.

Let’s be clear: Charlie Kirk was a bad person. Seriously. The interactions I had with him weren’t direct, but they always smelled of insincerity. This was someone who routinely abused the contemplation emoji to prove non-existent points that could be refuted without much research. He also was a January 6th insurrectionist, and he mocked George Floyd’s murder. Kirk was no different than Candace Owens in many ways, save being a white man who occasionally played nice with Jews and Israel. The latter was something Owens couldn’t even do.

Simultaneously, being shot wasn’t the right approach. Yes, he wouldn’t have batted an eye if someone on the left had been shot. And yes, people on the right, including his widow, have been feasting off of his death. But no, vigilante justice isn’t the answer to combatting his hate. Considering the nature of his death, and how it’s been warped, it’s much more telling of the gun violence issue in American society generally.

The Charlie Kirk situation’s beyond my pay-grade. What isn’t beyond my pay-grade is late night host Jimmy Kimmel’s stance on it. Kimmel’s statement was incredibly milquetoast. He not only didn’t take a side, he also chastised those who did. In particular, he jabbed President Trump’s response, citing that using his death to segue into a different topic was insensitive. That, and clamping down on freedom of speech was wrong. To quote Kimmel directly:

“We had some new lows over the weekend, with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them, and with everything they can to score political points from it.”

I don’t see how this is worth the backlash from the right, especially since Kimmel was showing more respect for Kirk than most of his allies. He also was right in calling out Trump segueing to talking about a ballroom in The White House. Even if you didn’t like Kirk, using this moment to focus on yourself is childish. A friend of yours died, show some respect! Is that really too much to ask?

Kimmel’s statements received plenty of backlash, including a suspension of his show from ABC. I get why Disney, the parent company, felt like this was the right call; after all, they’re currently in the middle of a mini-merger, and they want the approval of the current FCC. Disney, who’ve gotten in hot water with Trump before, felt pressure to make nice and not ruffle feathers. Even if Trump didn’t directly make a threat, Kimmel’s jab was probably a bit much, so they stopped the leak before the dam burst open. That much I understand.

Nevertheless, it’s frustrating that Disney, who won their fight with Governor DeSantis over the “Don’t Say Gay” bill in Florida, hasn’t shown more backbone. Disney isn’t some smalltime studio. They’re a corporation that’s been around for over a century, and they have a bigger base than the MAGA movement could ever dream of! So while it’s not unexpected for them to follow the money, this is really cowardly. It also reeks of desperation.

Naturally, their decision to fire Kimmel has backfired, accruing financial losses as longtime fans and people on their payroll have shared dissatisfaction. It’s gotten so bad that both Ted Cruz and former Disney CEO Michael Eisner have expressed disapproval. Cruz being anti-Disney on this is already telling, but Eisner? Given how Eisner left Disney on bad terms, that’s saying something! Your move, Bob Iger!

I probably won’t be cancelling Disney+, especially considering what I paid to renew my subscription. Nevertheless, the backlash is warranted. This reminds me of when Disney fired James Gunn over Tweets he’d apologized for years prior, as well as the backlash that resulted there. Ironically, that too happened when Trump was president. It also didn’t last long, as Disney immediately recognized their mistake and quickly made plans to remedy it. It also allowed Gunn to become an employee of Warner Bros. This sort of knee-jerk decision from Disney blew up in their face once before, so you’d think they’d have learned their lesson.

In the meantime, I’m not shocked by the aftermath. Nor do I think it’s unwarranted. Will the proposed boycott of Disney, and the subsequent decline in shares, make them reverse their decision? Considering Disney prides itself on their reputation, probably. At least, I’d hope so. The precedent’s there historically, and Disney knows this.

This is a case of jawboning on the part of Disney. It’s not censorship, as Trump didn’t make the decision for Disney, but it’s pretty close. And yes, jawboning’s a real word. It also is self-explanatory. Look it up.

By Disney jawboning Kimmel, they’ve made this leak into a massive fissure. And it’s entirely deserved. Ignoring how Disney can afford the financial losses, they’ve kowtowed to a politician who has thin skin. Disney can’t and shouldn’t pretend Trump won’t go after them at some point too, as he will. He’s that insecure.

I’m also worried about the state of late night comedy. Trump’s lashed out at corporate media outlets for criticizing him before, and he brought The New York Times to court for shedding light on his behaviour recently. Comedians, particularly political pundits, are supposed to ridicule and keep politicians in-check. It’s important for a healthy democracy, one Trump’s intent on ruining. Besides, who’s to say this won’t happen again?

I’ll end with a point of comparison: in 1985, during President Reagan’s inauguration, several comedians, like Don Rickles and Rodney Dangerfield, were brought in to roast the returning president. Some of their jokes were hard-hitting and personal, touching on Reagan’s stint as governor of California and his time as a Hollywood actor. But while Reagan could’ve been offended, he took it in stride. He was willing to laugh at his own expense, as he knew the importance of comedy. It pains me to praise him, considering how much damage he’d do to The US, but it highlights a stark contrast between Reagan and Trump. And if what happened to Jimmy Kimmel and Charlie Kirk is indication, it shows how far The US has fallen in 40 years. That’s more telling than anything anyone could say politically.

21st Century Disney? A Post-Mortem

(Note: The following is all based on speculation and personal concerns, and is subject to reflection pending what happens next.)

Last month, I wrote a blog discussing the talks Disney was having with 20th Century Fox to buy their films and TV divisions, the implications behind the deal and what I personally thought. This past Friday, the deal was closed for $52.4 billion. While some people were cheering at the prospects, others were mortified by Disney gaining control of more of Hollywood’s assets. I still remain divided on this, but for the sake of inner-peace, I’ll argue both sides and explain why this is a big deal in hopes of making sure my readers better understand where I’m coming from:

Pros:

In the 80’s and 90’s, Marvel, now a giant corporation, was on the verge of bankruptcy. In order to help their situation, Marvel comics siphoned off their IPs to different film studios with the intent of making movies. Said siphoning came with a single clause: in order to keep hold of the property indefinitely, the studio had to begin work on a new film every few years. Note that they didn’t have to make the film, but rather begin work on it.

Many of Marvel’s high-profile IPs went to big-budget studios. Fantastic Four, for example, went to a studio that’d later be bought out by 20th Century Fox, while Spider-Man would float around for many years before being grabbed by Sony Pictures. And, of course, The Incredible Hulk went to Universal. This decision saved Marvel from collapsing, but it left them with little of their own in the end.

That didn’t stop Marvel from working with what they had, however. After seeing the frequent misuses of their IPs on the big screen, in 2008, after reclaiming Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk, Marvel began an experiment that’d become known as The MCU. Beginning with Iron Man, they kicked off a shared universe on the big screen, with mostly C-tier superheroes, and made a name for themselves in Hollywood. This was further amped up by Disney purchasing Marvel in 2009 and adding them to their growing arsenal. With their success all but assured, Disney simply had to play the waiting game to gain back all of Marvel’s lost IPs.

But there was a problem: not every studio was willing to co-operate. Some, like Lionsgate, were happy to oblige, seeing no real use in failed IPs, but others, like Universal, would only give up what they had on the condition that they shared profiting or licensing rights. This was how Marvel reclaimed Spider-Man from Sony in 2015, and even now any solo Spider-Man efforts are under the Sony Pictures banner. Yet the biggest thorn in Disney’s side was 20th Century Fox, who stubbornly held onto Fantastic Four (despite four failed movies) and X-Men (a property they had mixed success with.) Disney and Fox were known enemies, with Fox making their acquisition of Star Wars in 2012 a living nightmare, so reclaiming these properties seemed like nothing but a distant dream in the eyes of Marvel fans…until now.

The one upside to this deal is, as I mentioned, a full acquisition of Marvel’s properties. Finally, after decades, Marvel’s complete! Fantastic Four has a shot at a good movie now! X-Men can appear in The MCU! It’s like I said last time: think of the possibilities.

But even outside of that, Disney can now use Fox’s IPs in any way they so desire: want to finally make Avatar the franchise Disney’s clearly wanted since they opened up their theme park? It can happen. Want to reboot the Alien, Predator, Terminator and Die Hard franchises properly? It can happen. And with The Simpsons being well-past its prime, having gone on for 28 seasons, perhaps it’ll finally be cancelled? Who knows?

What’s best is, on a purely theoretical level, the amount of creative freedom Disney’s giving these properties and the results they’ve received because of that. The Muppets has seen a renaissance under their rule following two successful films this decade. Disney’s Marvel and Star Wars divisions have really shone, with Star Wars getting a second-life following the reception of The Prequels. And with the announcement that Deadpool 2 will get to keep its R-rating, this looks to be a deal with no losses on paper!

Cons:

All of this is hunky-dory, but at what cost?

Keep in mind two points: first, this wasn’t a cash deal, but a stocks deal. That $52.4 billion was all in shares of the Fox enterprise. And now that Disney owns the film rights to its biggest competitor, this makes for some really shady investing considering that Disney was on the verge of bankruptcy 30 years ago.

Remember, Disney’s not infallible. They’ve made big mistakes, and I’d argue that their streaming service they’re set to launch next year will be another one. It’s easy to assume that Disney’s untouchable, especially given their record profits these last few years, but they could crash-and-burn if they’re not careful. Pride goeth before a fall, after all!

On a deeper level, this also reeks of anti-competitive practices. We bemoan big corporations running Hollywood, but the diversity of studio output allows for healthy competition and creative options. Art never works well under unfair monopolies. As so do big corporations, since they never feel a need to expand their horizons and challenge themselves.

This is something I don’t think fans are aware of. True, X-Men was always a Marvel property, but while it’d had its ups and downs under Fox, it was going in unique directions that Disney wouldn’t take. An ambitious film like X-Men: Days of Future Past would’ve never flown with Disney, nor would small-scale ventures like Logan or Deadpool. They wouldn’t be acceptable under the family-friendly reputation Disney’s made for themselves. And that’s important to note in a superhero market like the one currently dominating Hollywood.

It also bothers me because Disney’s now one step closer to owning everything in Hollywood and charging more for consumer to watch movies. Films are already expensive enough as is, I don’t need to pay any more than I already do. Yet I might have to, and that worries me.

Essentially, this is greed at its finest. I can appreciate Marvel owning Fantastic Four, as Lord knows the IP was struggling, and X-Men being back at Disney is fine, if not a little disappointing creatively. But owning all of 20th Century Fox’s IPs? Isn’t that a bit much? Isn’t that a bit scary?

Still, I’m willing to be proven wrong, so who knows?

Of Disney and Sound Mind...

(Warning: The following entry contains spoilers for Ralph Breaks the Internet. I strongly urge everyone to see the film first.)

Growing up, I assumed that Disney was of two minds. The first mind gave us classics like Fantasia, The Jungle Book, The Disney Renaissance films and, later, Pixar’s line-up. The second mind routinely made bad, corporate decisions and shovelled out garbage in an attempt to shamelessly pander to children. These two minds, at least on the outset, appeared to clash, such that I never could peg the company: were they responsible for some of the best movies ever, or were they responsible for some of the worst movies ever? Did they cater to families, or openly insult them?

I know I’m not alone on my feelings. Many people, myself included, have expressed thoughts about Disney’s recent business practices-from acquiring 20th Century Fox, to unjustly firing James Gunn over old Tweets he’s apologized for-yet have still ended up watching their films anyway. They’ve openly derided Disney’s corporate self-awareness in their recent work, all-the-while enjoying this self-deprecation. They’ve even mocked their shameless live-action remakes of classic movies, despite still seeing them. For every complaint you can lob at Disney’s corporate side, you can as easily give a compliment to their creative side.

Perhaps this is most-apparent in Ralph Breaks the Internet. The film is their fourth canonical sequel, right after The Rescuers Down Under, Fantasia 2000 and Winnie the Pooh, yet it definitely feels the most corporate. This is to be expected, especially with it tackling the internet, but the level of flat-out shamelessness feels in your face. Between references to eBay, YouTube, Twitter, viral videos, search bars, pop-up blockers and online video game servers, I was half-expecting a Rick-Roll. And, thankfully, the movie didn’t disappoint there either.

However, it all clicks, no pun intended. And I think that has to do with Disney’s artistic side, as everything about the movie, even its corporate cynicism, is crafted with a weird sense of love and adoration. Some parts feel like they’re stretching it, like how Ralph’s videos on BuzzTube go viral so quickly and net him big bucks (trust me, it’s not that simple), but it doesn’t lose sight of its own charm. The movie’s creators seem like they actually care, and this extends to the film’s (2nd)-best scene:

Snow White’s vocal solo always gets me. (Courtesy of Disney UK.)

This scene should be the most cynical, contrived part of the entire movie: it’s self-referential, taking place at “Oh My Disney!” (which, by the way, is a real site.) All of the canonical Disney princesses are present, with the living voice actresses reprising their roles, and they each lament their tropes to the audience. And it feels like padding, as Ralph Breaks the Internet borders on 2-hours. Despite this, it’s funny, clever and really well-acted, even resurfacing in the movie’s third-act. So despite later reminding you that, yes, Disney owns the rights to the 60’s Batman theme, because 20th Century Fox, it’s hard to really stay mad when the creators made a great pitcher of lemonade out of shrivelled up, corporate lemons.

You know what else feels refreshingly sincere? The film’s musical showstopper and, arguably, all-around best scene, one destined for a Best Original Song nomination at The Oscars. In it, Vanellope, lamenting about her fondness for the online game Slaughter Race, sings about how she prefers the game to Sugar Rush. It’s a great number that showcases Sarah Silverman and Gal Gadot’s singing chops (which surprised me), but the lyrics are grossly self-aware. You can only hear a line like “Hey, there’s a Dollar Store!” in the opening verse so many times before you smirk at its corporate corniness.

But that’s how Disney is in general: they put enough heart into cash-grabs to make you forget they’re cash-grabs. They repackage the same product in different ways to make you crave it over and over. They also show their awful, business side repeatedly, but you forget all about that with their next offering. Disney, like Nintendo, knows how to force your own nostalgia down your throat and not make you choke, cynical as that is. And if people can overlook Nintendo suing shamelessly over ROM disputes and firing Alison Rapp for moonlighting prostitution in university, then they can overlook Disney unjustly firing James Gunn and not distancing themselves from John Lasseter after his predatory behaviour became public knowledge.

That’s what makes Disney successful, after all! It’s not like they don’t have talented individuals working for them, because they do: they have a strong team of animators and writers. Pixar’s one of their subsidiaries. They’ve made billions of dollars from Marvel and Star Wars, and they’ll soon add Indiana Jones to their repertoire. They even had a temporary deal with Studio Ghibli, pumping money into their later productions and distributing their films in the West. Say what you will about Disney, but there are people in the company who care!

And I don’t think that’s unintentional. As a child, it might’ve seemed like Disney was of contradictory minds, but as an adult I no longer see the contradiction: they can, and do, co-exist. It’s possible to be both corporate and passionate. And it’s possible to build an empire from quality entertainment. Because if Walt Disney himself has taught us anything, it’s that an astute businessman sees the market and jumps on it…even if that means stepping on the toes of others.

Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’m gonna whine some more about the “live-action” remake of The Lion King, even though I’ll probably end up watching it…

Black Widow's Widow

I sometimes feel like my love-hate relationship with Disney is harmful. On one hand, as I’ve said before, I love much of their work. On the other hand, I despise their business practices, especially when they harm people. That said, it seems like their behaviour is getting worse. Which brings me to their legal battle with Scarlett Johansson.

I’m sure everyone’s familiar with The MCU. It’s one of the biggest and most-profitable business ventures in Hollywood, with 24 films and several shows under its belt. Chances are you’ve heard of or seen one, and it isn’t slowing down anytime soon. If anything, the pandemic only set everything back a year. That says a lot.

Johansson’s contract with Marvel ended with Black Widow, her first solo film since the franchise began in 2008. Despite doing well critically, its box office returns were hampered by the pandemic. Disney was even forced to release it theatrically and on Disney+ simultaneously. The latter also included a Premier Access fee, but I’ve covered my thoughts on that already. Sufficed to say, it’s one of The MCU’s lowest-grossing entries.

I mention this because it’s relevant to a scandal that Disney’s engaged in. It turns out Johansson’s contract was breached, and now she’s suing. Disney, in turn, has pushed back, arguing that Johansson’s been inconsiderate and greedy. It’s been making waves, with Emily Blunt and Emma Stone contemplating suing over their contracts too. It’s messy.

I get the position Disney’s in, to an extent. They were planning for a straight-to-theatre release last Summer, but their plans were derailed by COVID. The movie kept getting delayed, until Disney went for a simultaneous release on Disney+. This was something they didn’t have full control over, and that needs to be factored into the equation.

That said, I still side with Johansson. She may not need the money, she’s one of Hollywood’s highest-paid stars, but her contract was strictly for a theatrical release. She didn’t get that. And while the pandemic forced Disney’s hand, her contract should’ve been modified. It’s a case of underhanded, corporate backstabbing, and she deserves compensation.

Additionally, Disney’s behaviour hasn’t made them look favourable. For one, the rhetoric they’ve used has been accused of misogynistic undertones. To quote their legal team:

“‘This lawsuit is especially sad and distressing in its callous disregard for the horrific and prolonged global effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. Disney has fully complied with Ms. Johansson's contract and furthermore, the release of Black Widow on Disney+ with Premier Access has significantly enhanced her ability to earn additional compensation on top of the $20M she has received to date.’”

This seems to imply that Johansson doesn’t care about the pandemic, something her legal team, and organizations like Time’s Up, have cited as an attack on her character. And while it’s not my place to comment directly, since I’m male, I have to wonder if the words “sad” and “distressing” would’ve been used if this were her male co-stars…

Two, it’s not like Disney can’t afford it. While many individuals have suffered in the past year and a half, Disney’s one of the outliers that’ve actually gained because of the pandemic. Shares have skyrocketed, with their Disney+ subscriber count jumping to over 100 million. Considering that, Johansson’s demands are miniscule. If anything, they’re a drop in the bucket.

And three, it’s more insult to injury for The House of Mouse’s. Remember, they opened their theme parks in the middle of the pandemic, despite warnings that it wasn’t safe. They’ve routinely put profit over those in their payroll, and this another example of that. So while I understand their decision to change their release, I don’t feel sympathy. Or, at least, I don’t feel sympathy for their wallets.

I’m interested in the ripple effects this could have for anyone who’s been slighted by Disney in recent years. Remember, Emma Stone and Emily Blunt have considered suing over Cruella and Jungle Cruise, two movies they starred in respectively. Their films were also shoved onto Disney+, and they probably felt slighted too. Especially if their contracts weren’t renegotiated.

Then there are future films. Free Guy currently has a theatre-only release, but if it bombs financially it could end up being moved to Disney+. And what about Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings? If that’s switched to Disney+ without warning because of the pandemic, will Simu Liu, the star, also sue? As it stands, nothing’s off the table.

This is the real litmus test. The pandemic has shifted releases to streaming services in large numbers, and while understandable, it raises ethical questions about actor contracts: should they be static, or flexible? Can they be changed based on unforeseen circumstances? And, if so, should the stars be consulted first? I’m no legal expert, but I’m sure these questions will surface in the future.

In Disney’s case, this lawsuit isn’t surprising. The Walt Disney Company has a history of shady practices, including Walt Disney’s alliance with The CIA to brand its striking animators as Communists and blacklist them in the 1940’s. The company’s coasted on deceit and lies, and this is another example. But whereas past endeavours are wrong, this, like the Cicely Daniher case, is something personal made public. It has legs, and it could reshape how big-name stars negotiate contracts.

In the end, it’s sad to see Disney use their image to deceive someone like that. Disney might make good movies, and they might have smart people working for them, but greed is greed. And it hurts people. Scarlett Johansson, a woman who’s been embroiled in controversy before, certainly doesn’t need the money, but it doesn’t matter. She was wronged, and she deserves to make it right. It’s about the principle.