DeSantis scores a victory over Disney

[Animal]

well as a new stockholder you seem to know all there is to know about Disney. The topics you hit on sound a great deal like the spin that Peltz and his Trian group are putting on this whole thing. I just voted exactly like the Disney grandchildren asked me to vote.

Well, I dont know everything but I have followed this quite closely and the one Disney grandchild is a bleeding heart diehard Lib so its no shocker that she would support Iger and the failed Disney direction.
Disney's previous stock plunge isnt exactly a secret (its one of the reasons I looked into it at all) and its not a coincidence that the rebound(s) happen to neatly fall in line timing wise with Peltz and his groups workings and threats. If youre a shareholder yourself you should be happy that Peltz has forced Iger's hand into at least some fiscal responsibility and truth telling. The stock now hopefully is making you money.
I want a company I own stock in to be focused on profit and quality; not forced diversity that results in poor performing intellectual property.

I started buying Disney stock 30 years ago and I have made a purchase every single month since. I'm pretty up to date on Disney and have been for quite a while. None of this has anything to do with Peltz. Iger ran Disney when it was at its premier. Disney stock started to drop when Covid hit and it devistated the entire business model. Iger wasn't there and Chopek got stuck with a bunch of bad decisions. Throw in the BLM movement and the kids that work at Disney pushing for activist actions, which Chopek went along with and you get the woke crowd bitching. Reedy Creek is much more about Disney making the decision to no longer give away free tickets to the politicians and county employees. It always has been. But the woke crowd thinks its a reaction to their campaign. That was the spin, but not the reality.

I talked to someone that works at the park in Orlando the day they brought Iger back and she said that everyone was over the moon about him coming back. She couldn't have even told you who Peltz was. Disney stock was up 20% on the news he was coming back. The stock made 20% without him even doing anything.

Iger will lead the company the same way that he did when he ran it before. I have no doubt about that. Peltz will benefit from Iger's leadership and sell when he loses his board fight. Its what guys like him do. The Gordon Gekkos (sp?). And, yes as a stockholder I am glad that Iger is back and making the changes that he is making. Any company that has stockholders likes a man running the business that focuses on profits. Iger has always been that kind of leader. Which is absolutely nothing to do with some 2% shareholder named Peltz.

[CHEEZY17]

well as a new stockholder you seem to know all there is to know about Disney. The topics you hit on sound a great deal like the spin that Peltz and his Trian group are putting on this whole thing. I just voted exactly like the Disney grandchildren asked me to vote.

Well, I dont know everything but I have followed this quite closely and the one Disney grandchild is a bleeding heart diehard Lib so its no shocker that she would support Iger and the failed Disney direction.
Disney's previous stock plunge isnt exactly a secret (its one of the reasons I looked into it at all) and its not a coincidence that the rebound(s) happen to neatly fall in line timing wise with Peltz and his groups workings and threats. If youre a shareholder yourself you should be happy that Peltz has forced Iger's hand into at least some fiscal responsibility and truth telling. The stock now hopefully is making you money.
I want a company I own stock in to be focused on profit and quality; not forced diversity that results in poor performing intellectual property.

I started buying Disney stock 30 years ago and I have made a purchase every single month since. I'm pretty up to date on Disney and have been for quite a while. None of this has anything to do with Peltz. Iger ran Disney when it was at its premier. Disney stock started to drop when Covid hit and it devistated the entire business model. Iger wasn't there and Chopek got stuck with a bunch of bad decisions. Throw in the BLM movement and the kids that work at Disney pushing for activist actions, which Chopek went along with and you get the woke crowd bitching. Reedy Creek is much more about Disney making the decision to no longer give away free tickets to the politicians and county employees. It always has been. But the woke crowd thinks its a reaction to their campaign. That was the spin, but not the reality.

I talked to someone that works at the park in Orlando the day they brought Iger back and she said that everyone was over the moon about him coming back. She couldn't have even told you who Peltz was. Disney stock was up 20% on the news he was coming back. The stock made 20% without him even doing anything.

Iger will lead the company the same way that he did when he ran it before. I have no doubt about that. Peltz will benefit from Iger's leadership and sell when he loses his board fight. Its what guys like him do. The Gordon Gekkos (sp?). And, yes as a stockholder I am glad that Iger is back and making the changes that he is making. Any company that has stockholders likes a man running the business that focuses on profits. Iger has always been that kind of leader. Which is absolutely nothing to do with some 2% shareholder named Peltz.

Sorry, I simply disagree. If you think Peltz and his allies have nothing to do with this then I would suggest reading a bit more than the corporate propaganda. Iger was at the helm and greenlit a ton of bad decisions on movies, shows, parks and hotels and other things. Thats all him. Making Covid the scapegoat is just not accurate and it excuses his poor decisions. Look at the timing of Peltz's threats and actions and you see the stock responses. Peltz and his allies are directly responsible for these changes for the better as after every public accusation of mismanagement and waste by the group, Iger responded and the stock price did as well. Woke employees are glad their woke CEO is back? Shocker! As a shareholder yourself I guess my question is why are you OK with poor performance, multiple failures and poor decisions? While I havent been a shareholder for thirty years I have been a shareholder from even before Peltz began his proxy fight. Those poor Iger decisions resulted in significant financial losses, lowered expectations, alienated and insulted fan bases and lost potential profit. Those decisions and resulting losses didnt make themselves. Iger is not the executive master you think he is. Better decisions now cant erase his bad decisions in the past.
I want a company I own stock in to be focused on profit and quality; not forced diversity that results in poor performing intellectual property. Sorry, but Iger's track record is the reason for the proxy fight. If the company was performing as it should have been none of this would even be happening.

[Animal]

well as a new stockholder you seem to know all there is to know about Disney. The topics you hit on sound a great deal like the spin that Peltz and his Trian group are putting on this whole thing. I just voted exactly like the Disney grandchildren asked me to vote.

Well, I dont know everything but I have followed this quite closely and the one Disney grandchild is a bleeding heart diehard Lib so its no shocker that she would support Iger and the failed Disney direction.
Disney's previous stock plunge isnt exactly a secret (its one of the reasons I looked into it at all) and its not a coincidence that the rebound(s) happen to neatly fall in line timing wise with Peltz and his groups workings and threats. If youre a shareholder yourself you should be happy that Peltz has forced Iger's hand into at least some fiscal responsibility and truth telling. The stock now hopefully is making you money.
I want a company I own stock in to be focused on profit and quality; not forced diversity that results in poor performing intellectual property.

I started buying Disney stock 30 years ago and I have made a purchase every single month since. I'm pretty up to date on Disney and have been for quite a while. None of this has anything to do with Peltz. Iger ran Disney when it was at its premier. Disney stock started to drop when Covid hit and it devistated the entire business model. Iger wasn't there and Chopek got stuck with a bunch of bad decisions. Throw in the BLM movement and the kids that work at Disney pushing for activist actions, which Chopek went along with and you get the woke crowd bitching. Reedy Creek is much more about Disney making the decision to no longer give away free tickets to the politicians and county employees. It always has been. But the woke crowd thinks its a reaction to their campaign. That was the spin, but not the reality.

I talked to someone that works at the park in Orlando the day they brought Iger back and she said that everyone was over the moon about him coming back. She couldn't have even told you who Peltz was. Disney stock was up 20% on the news he was coming back. The stock made 20% without him even doing anything.

Iger will lead the company the same way that he did when he ran it before. I have no doubt about that. Peltz will benefit from Iger's leadership and sell when he loses his board fight. Its what guys like him do. The Gordon Gekkos (sp?). And, yes as a stockholder I am glad that Iger is back and making the changes that he is making. Any company that has stockholders likes a man running the business that focuses on profits. Iger has always been that kind of leader. Which is absolutely nothing to do with some 2% shareholder named Peltz.

Sorry, I simply disagree. If you think Peltz and his allies have nothing to do with this then I would suggest reading a bit more than the corporate propaganda. Iger was at the helm and greenlit a ton of bad decisions on movies, shows, parks and hotels and other things. Thats all him. Making Covid the scapegoat is just not accurate and it excuses his poor decisions. Look at the timing of Peltz's threats and actions and you see the stock responses. Peltz and his allies are directly responsible for these changes for the better as after every public accusation of mismanagement and waste by the group, Iger responded and the stock price did as well. Woke employees are glad their woke CEO is back? Shocker! As a shareholder yourself I guess my question is why are you OK with poor performance, multiple failures and poor decisions? While I havent been a shareholder for thirty years I have been a shareholder from even before Peltz began his proxy fight. Those poor Iger decisions resulted in significant financial losses, lowered expectations, alienated and insulted fan bases and lost potential profit. Those decisions and resulting losses didnt make themselves. Iger is not the executive master you think he is. Better decisions now cant erase his bad decisions in the past.
I want a company I own stock in to be focused on profit and quality; not forced diversity that results in poor performing intellectual property. Sorry, but Iger's track record is the reason for the proxy fight. If the company was performing as it should have been none of this would even be happening.

I am going to assume that you know that when you talk about stock performance you have to compare companies that are in the same industry. What other media and entertainment companies do you think Disney has under performed over the past 20+ years? and i'm not considering netflix who is sort of a one trick pony in the entertainment business. i'm talking about large multi dimensional media and entertainment companies.

[CHEEZY17]

well as a new stockholder you seem to know all there is to know about Disney. The topics you hit on sound a great deal like the spin that Peltz and his Trian group are putting on this whole thing. I just voted exactly like the Disney grandchildren asked me to vote.

Well, I dont know everything but I have followed this quite closely and the one Disney grandchild is a bleeding heart diehard Lib so its no shocker that she would support Iger and the failed Disney direction.
Disney's previous stock plunge isnt exactly a secret (its one of the reasons I looked into it at all) and its not a coincidence that the rebound(s) happen to neatly fall in line timing wise with Peltz and his groups workings and threats. If youre a shareholder yourself you should be happy that Peltz has forced Iger's hand into at least some fiscal responsibility and truth telling. The stock now hopefully is making you money.
I want a company I own stock in to be focused on profit and quality; not forced diversity that results in poor performing intellectual property.

I started buying Disney stock 30 years ago and I have made a purchase every single month since. I'm pretty up to date on Disney and have been for quite a while. None of this has anything to do with Peltz. Iger ran Disney when it was at its premier. Disney stock started to drop when Covid hit and it devistated the entire business model. Iger wasn't there and Chopek got stuck with a bunch of bad decisions. Throw in the BLM movement and the kids that work at Disney pushing for activist actions, which Chopek went along with and you get the woke crowd bitching. Reedy Creek is much more about Disney making the decision to no longer give away free tickets to the politicians and county employees. It always has been. But the woke crowd thinks its a reaction to their campaign. That was the spin, but not the reality.

I talked to someone that works at the park in Orlando the day they brought Iger back and she said that everyone was over the moon about him coming back. She couldn't have even told you who Peltz was. Disney stock was up 20% on the news he was coming back. The stock made 20% without him even doing anything.

Iger will lead the company the same way that he did when he ran it before. I have no doubt about that. Peltz will benefit from Iger's leadership and sell when he loses his board fight. Its what guys like him do. The Gordon Gekkos (sp?). And, yes as a stockholder I am glad that Iger is back and making the changes that he is making. Any company that has stockholders likes a man running the business that focuses on profits. Iger has always been that kind of leader. Which is absolutely nothing to do with some 2% shareholder named Peltz.

Sorry, I simply disagree. If you think Peltz and his allies have nothing to do with this then I would suggest reading a bit more than the corporate propaganda. Iger was at the helm and greenlit a ton of bad decisions on movies, shows, parks and hotels and other things. Thats all him. Making Covid the scapegoat is just not accurate and it excuses his poor decisions. Look at the timing of Peltz's threats and actions and you see the stock responses. Peltz and his allies are directly responsible for these changes for the better as after every public accusation of mismanagement and waste by the group, Iger responded and the stock price did as well. Woke employees are glad their woke CEO is back? Shocker! As a shareholder yourself I guess my question is why are you OK with poor performance, multiple failures and poor decisions? While I havent been a shareholder for thirty years I have been a shareholder from even before Peltz began his proxy fight. Those poor Iger decisions resulted in significant financial losses, lowered expectations, alienated and insulted fan bases and lost potential profit. Those decisions and resulting losses didnt make themselves. Iger is not the executive master you think he is. Better decisions now cant erase his bad decisions in the past.
I want a company I own stock in to be focused on profit and quality; not forced diversity that results in poor performing intellectual property. Sorry, but Iger's track record is the reason for the proxy fight. If the company was performing as it should have been none of this would even be happening.

I am going to assume that you know that when you talk about stock performance you have to compare companies that are in the same industry. What other media and entertainment companies do you think Disney has under performed over the past 20+ years? and i'm not considering netflix who is sort of a one trick pony in the entertainment business. i'm talking about large multi dimensional media and entertainment companies.

Its not all about Disney compared to another company; its about poor management and decision making resulting in the misuse and destruction of once gold standard intellectual properties. Its about lost potential revenue for the company and us as well via a better performing stock.
Think about these OK'd decisions and how they might affect fan bases and profits all within the past 10 years off the top of my head:

-Ethnic Snow White and no dwarves (completely shelved after fan backlash and now headed for a complete reshoot)
-Tried to gender swap Indiana fucking Jones and force-feed a female heroine in his place but after that leaked and the world voiced their displeasure, multiple reshoots happened but the movie was already tainted.
-Race swap Ariel
-Race swap Peter Pan and Tinkerbell
-Female Thor? Jeezus H. Christ.
-Forced women power in "the Marvels"
-Forced female power in Star Wars and the destruction/minimalization of beloved male characters
-Bait and switch with "Obi Wan" series. Turns out is was the young Princess Leia series.
-Bait and switch with Boba Fett series. Turns out Boba Fett is kind of "meh" but his powerful female sidekick is amazeballs!
-Failed Overpriced Star Wars hotel based on the widely panned sequel trilogy
-Forced diversity race swapping Captain America
-Forced women power messaging in basically everything.
-Admitting to pushing a gay agenda
-Turns out a female Loki is just as important as male Loki
-Blatant disregard and hatred for beloved source material
-Forced gay kiss in a kids Buzz fucking Lightyear movie thats not really about classic Buzz lightyear but a new "modern" one

Sorry brother, but if you think those things didnt hurt the bottom line and our stock price then Ive got some ocean view property just outside of Phoenix for you. For me, this is it: I want a company I own stock in to be focused on profit and quality; not forced diversity and agendas that results in poor performing intellectual property. You still have time to change your votes.

Oh really? huh. You OK'd them, Bob.
Disney CEO Bob Iger says company’s movies have been too focused on messaging
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/11/30/disney- ... aging.html

Disney admits its leftward shift is affecting profits in this SEC filing:
“Generally, our revenues and profitability are adversely impacted when our entertainment offerings and products, as well as our methods to make our offerings and products available to consumers, do not achieve sufficient consumer acceptance,” the company said in its SEC filing."

Struggling Disney hints its woke politics ‘present risks to our reputation and brands’
https://nypost.com/2023/11/28/business/ ... nd-brands/

[Animal]

So you are 100% focused on the movies that Disney made. I get it. Its the woke reaction.

Disney also owns ESPN, ABC. They have major Disney parks all over the world. Their list of licensing rights on characters and movies is off the charts.
They have Disney cruise lines. Hotels. Restaurants around the world. Disney Plus streaming. Hollywood Records. A&E and the History Channel. Vice Media. Lucas Films. Pixar. Marvel. And you point out 10 or 12 mistakes as though that sums it all up. If you were broke down on the side of the road and I drove up and started telling you that you needed to fix your engine, but had no idea what was wrong with it, would you consider that helpful information? Iger has already said that the messaging was wrong, do you think he needed some outsider to tell him that or do you think he could look at the box office numbers and figure it out like that company has done for over a hundred years? If you suspend a dividend because of Covid, with plans to reinstate it once financial conditions turn around, do you need an outsider to step in and tell you that you need to reinstate the dividend? And then do you think you credit him when you do reinstate it? If you think companies like Disney don't take forks in the road along the way and learn and adjust then you would be wrong. Look at the huge change Disney made when it bought Pixar? They bought a competitor because they seemed to be better at what Disney was known for doing? Think how that must have stung. Same with buying Lucas Film.

Disney is not a tech stock that you just sit back and ride the wave. It is a very dynamic stock that is impacted by lots and lots of market dynamics. There are 5 ships in Disney Cruise lines. Can you imagine if you had a business and part of your business was running 5 cruise ships and you had to shut them down for over a year? Can you imagine the cost of doing that? The lost revenue, the upkeep to park them, the employees you have to re-assign or let go and then rehire. Then the cost of starting back up. The hotels and parking that are impacted? And that's just one small piece of the puzzle they had to go through. I am sure that the gay kiss in Buzz Lightyear had a negative impact as well.

[CHEEZY17]

Look, its not just about the woke nonsense infecting and tarnishing the brand; although that is a huge part of their struggles. Look at the decisions and performance of other things too.
Yes, Disney owns lots of stuff. I would suggest taking a look at ESPN's and ABC's "profitablility".

Washout As Disney Cruise Line Reveals $325 Million Loss
https://www.forbes.com/sites/carolinere ... bbe02c719f
You want to defend a company thats been good to you for 30 years. I get it. Again, If the stock and management had been performing as a stock of this caliber should, none of this would be happening.

They have Disney cruise lines. Hotels. Restaurants around the world. Disney Plus streaming. Hollywood Records. A&E and the History Channel. Vice Media. Lucas Films. Pixar. Marvel. And you point out 10 or 12 mistakes as though that sums it all up

Yes, those things off the top of my head provide examples of decisions that have contributed to the struggles
Your examples...
Disney Cruises: losing money
Disney streaming: losing subscribers like crazy
Vice Media: losing money, layoffs, struggling
Lucas Films: Killed the golden goose of Star Wars and Indiana Jones with poor decisions and products. Indians Jones was panned and pretty much bombed for reasons I stated above, Star Wars continually puts out wokified underwhelming product in a franchise that should literally be printing money.
Pixar: losing money, possibly for sale
Marvel: Underwhelming wokified products that routinely underperform.
Those "mistakes" I pointed out are all just a part of this and you may think it silly but as a Star Wars fan I can tell you there are a shit ton of folks like me that absolutely HATE what theyve done to the product.

[Animal]

Look, its not just about the woke nonsense infecting and tarnishing the brand; although that is a huge part of their struggles. Look at the decisions and performance of other things too.
Yes, Disney owns lots of stuff. I would suggest taking a look at ESPN's and ABC's "profitablility".

Washout As Disney Cruise Line Reveals $325 Million Loss
https://www.forbes.com/sites/carolinere ... bbe02c719f
You want to defend a company thats been good to you for 30 years. I get it. Again, If the stock and management had been performing as a stock of this caliber should, none of this would be happening.

Disney is the hallmark of a "stock of this caliber". Tell me which one in this caliber is better at any of this than Disney? If you think that media companies, as a whole, aren't having problems adapting to consumer's changing styles and methods of receiving entertainment then you haven't been paying attention. Disney has considered for a few years now the possibility of selling ESPN. or spinning it off. That's not news. And what TV network hasn't suffered damage from the writer's strike and the liquidation of consumer demand from all of the streaming and cable networks?

you think some investment banker is going to come in and fix this? you trust a wall street guy over Bob Iger that has been doing this exact thing for over 25 years?

[CHEEZY17]

Look, its not just about the woke nonsense infecting and tarnishing the brand; although that is a huge part of their struggles. Look at the decisions and performance of other things too.
Yes, Disney owns lots of stuff. I would suggest taking a look at ESPN's and ABC's "profitablility".

Washout As Disney Cruise Line Reveals $325 Million Loss
https://www.forbes.com/sites/carolinere ... bbe02c719f
You want to defend a company thats been good to you for 30 years. I get it. Again, If the stock and management had been performing as a stock of this caliber should, none of this would be happening.

Disney is the hallmark of a "stock of this caliber". Tell me which one in this caliber is better at any of this than Disney? If you think that media companies, as a whole, aren't having problems adapting to consumer's changing styles and methods of receiving entertainment then you haven't been paying attention. Disney has considered for a few years now the possibility of selling ESPN. or spinning it off. That's not news. And what TV network hasn't suffered damage from the writer's strike and the liquidation of consumer demand from all of the streaming and cable networks?

you think some investment banker is going to come in and fix this? you trust a wall street guy over Bob Iger that has been doing this exact thing for over 25 years?

We'll have to disagree. ABC's and ESPN's problems track to before the recent writers strike. Thats just an excuse. ESPN has been a money pit for about a decade now.
As I stated above, at the very least, even if the takeover fails, This has forced Disney to admit and face some hard truths and "Yes" I do believe it took the Wall Street guy and his allies saying something to force changes because changes didnt start happening until Peltz and his allies went public with their concerns. You want to crown the guy that OK'd all of those bad decisions as a savior. I simply look at him as the guy that encouraged this shit, is facing the underwhelming results and backlash and is now trying to "fix" the shit he OK'd.

[Animal]

Look, its not just about the woke nonsense infecting and tarnishing the brand; although that is a huge part of their struggles. Look at the decisions and performance of other things too.
Yes, Disney owns lots of stuff. I would suggest taking a look at ESPN's and ABC's "profitablility".

Washout As Disney Cruise Line Reveals $325 Million Loss
https://www.forbes.com/sites/carolinere ... bbe02c719f
You want to defend a company thats been good to you for 30 years. I get it. Again, If the stock and management had been performing as a stock of this caliber should, none of this would be happening.

Disney is the hallmark of a "stock of this caliber". Tell me which one in this caliber is better at any of this than Disney? If you think that media companies, as a whole, aren't having problems adapting to consumer's changing styles and methods of receiving entertainment then you haven't been paying attention. Disney has considered for a few years now the possibility of selling ESPN. or spinning it off. That's not news. And what TV network hasn't suffered damage from the writer's strike and the liquidation of consumer demand from all of the streaming and cable networks?

you think some investment banker is going to come in and fix this? you trust a wall street guy over Bob Iger that has been doing this exact thing for over 25 years?

We'll have to disagree. ABC's and ESPN's problems track to before the recent writers strike. Thats just an excuse. ESPN has been a money pit for about a decade now.
As I stated above, at the very least, even if the takeover fails, This has forced Disney to admit and face some hard truths and "Yes" I do believe it took the Wall Street guy and his allies saying something to force changes because changes didnt start happening until Peltz and his allies went public with their concerns. You want to crown the guy that OK'd all of those bad decisions as a savior. I simply look at him as the guy that encouraged this shit, is facing the underwhelming results and backlash and is now trying to "fix" the shit he OK'd.

you have still dodged telling me which company "of this caliber" is better at this than Disney.

[Animal]

and instead of corporate propoganda are wall street spin, here's a real article about Iger and his return. I think its unbiased, its both pro and con on Iger's performance, but its pretty much in line with what I have witnessed over the past 25 years.

https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-a ... rough-ride

[CHEEZY17]

Look, its not just about the woke nonsense infecting and tarnishing the brand; although that is a huge part of their struggles. Look at the decisions and performance of other things too.
Yes, Disney owns lots of stuff. I would suggest taking a look at ESPN's and ABC's "profitablility".

Washout As Disney Cruise Line Reveals $325 Million Loss
https://www.forbes.com/sites/carolinere ... bbe02c719f
You want to defend a company thats been good to you for 30 years. I get it. Again, If the stock and management had been performing as a stock of this caliber should, none of this would be happening.

Disney is the hallmark of a "stock of this caliber". Tell me which one in this caliber is better at any of this than Disney? If you think that media companies, as a whole, aren't having problems adapting to consumer's changing styles and methods of receiving entertainment then you haven't been paying attention. Disney has considered for a few years now the possibility of selling ESPN. or spinning it off. That's not news. And what TV network hasn't suffered damage from the writer's strike and the liquidation of consumer demand from all of the streaming and cable networks?

you think some investment banker is going to come in and fix this? you trust a wall street guy over Bob Iger that has been doing this exact thing for over 25 years?

We'll have to disagree. ABC's and ESPN's problems track to before the recent writers strike. Thats just an excuse. ESPN has been a money pit for about a decade now.
As I stated above, at the very least, even if the takeover fails, This has forced Disney to admit and face some hard truths and "Yes" I do believe it took the Wall Street guy and his allies saying something to force changes because changes didnt start happening until Peltz and his allies went public with their concerns. You want to crown the guy that OK'd all of those bad decisions as a savior. I simply look at him as the guy that encouraged this shit, is facing the underwhelming results and backlash and is now trying to "fix" the shit he OK'd.

you have still dodged telling me which company "of this caliber" is better at this than Disney.

What is "at this"?
Well, Disney is a bit of unicorn in that it has its hand in so many things. I dont know if there is another company that is a peer comparison. Some would probably say that is part of the problem and maybe why there are some things that are rumored to be for sale. That cant and shouldnt excuse poor performance and bad decsions though.
Are there better Hotel companies? Yes.
Are there better theme park companies? I honestly dont know
Are there better cruise lines? Yes
Are there better streaming services? Yes
Are there better movie studios? Maybe/probably
Hopefully that answers your question.

[Animal]

Paramount. Last 5 years its down 79%
Comcast. Last 5 years its up 11%
Warner Bros. Last 5 years its down 66%

Disney. Last 5 years its FLAT.

and to answer your question, there is no one even close to Disney in theme parks.

[CHEEZY17]

Paramount. Last 5 years its down 79%
Comcast. Last 5 years its up 11%
Warner Bros. Last 5 years its down 66%

Disney. Last 5 years its FLAT.

and to answer your question, there is no one even close to Disney in theme parks.

OK, so its a mixed bag.
Looks like MGM studios did pretty well:
What is the revenue of Metro Goldwyn Mayer Studios?
MGM Studios's revenue is $13.1 billion.

MGM Studios has 4,103 employees, and the revenue per employee ratio is $3,199,484. MGM Studios's peak quarterly revenue was $4.0B in 2023(q3). MGM Studios peak revenue was $13.1B in 2022. MGM Studios annual revenue for 2021 was 9.7B, 87.52% growth from 2020.

The argument made by Peltz and his allies is that the stock could have (should have) done better without all of the missteps and with better management; which include forced messaging leading to underperforming Intellectual Properties. I really dont see how thats even arguable. The company admitted as much in the SEC filing:
“Generally, our revenues and profitability are adversely impacted when our entertainment offerings and products, as well as our methods to make our offerings and products available to consumers, do not achieve sufficient consumer acceptance,” the company said in its SEC filing." I know youre smart enough to understand what thats saying. Thats the company itself saying that the customer base isnt liking what its doing-not me or Peltz. No one forced Disney and all of the companies under its umbrella to ham-handedly force the messaging. That was all a conscious choice and when stuff underperformed they attacked the fanbase as sexist and racist. Not very smart.
Maybe Star Wars makes more money if they keep to George Lucas' vision instead of turning it into girl power and emasculating every main male character.
Maybe Indiana Jones doesnt bomb if they dont try to turn him female and instead make the movie about him. They had a rumored 5 reshoots after dismal test audience scores and still made a bomb.
Maybe Snow White gets tons of positive press and people looking forward to a remake if its the actual story? Instead they tries to make ethnic Snow white and the 7 magical creatures that was rightly mocked and shamed into a massive reworking.
I could on but you think this stuff like this doesnt matter. It does and Disney admitted it. I get it, you like Iger. We'll have to disagree.

[Animal]

Paramount. Last 5 years its down 79%
Comcast. Last 5 years its up 11%
Warner Bros. Last 5 years its down 66%

Disney. Last 5 years its FLAT.

and to answer your question, there is no one even close to Disney in theme parks.

OK, so its a mixed bag.
Looks like MGM studios did pretty well:
What is the revenue of Metro Goldwyn Mayer Studios?
MGM Studios's revenue is $13.1 billion.

MGM Studios has 4,103 employees, and the revenue per employee ratio is $3,199,484. MGM Studios's peak quarterly revenue was $4.0B in 2023(q3). MGM Studios peak revenue was $13.1B in 2022. MGM Studios annual revenue for 2021 was 9.7B, 87.52% growth from 2020.

The argument made by Peltz and his allies is that the stock could have (should have) done better without all of the missteps and with better management; which include forced messaging leading to underperforming Intellectual Properties. I really dont see how thats even arguable. The company admitted as much in the SEC filing:
“Generally, our revenues and profitability are adversely impacted when our entertainment offerings and products, as well as our methods to make our offerings and products available to consumers, do not achieve sufficient consumer acceptance,” the company said in its SEC filing." I know youre smart enough to understand what thats saying. Thats the company itself saying that the customer base isnt liking what its doing-not me or Peltz. No one forced Disney and all of the companies under its umbrella to ham-handedly force the messaging. That was all a conscious choice and when stuff underperformed they attacked the fanbase as sexist and racist. Not very smart.
Maybe Star Wars makes more money if they keep to George Lucas' vision instead of turning it into girl power and emasculating every main male character.
Maybe Indiana Jones doesnt bomb if they dont try to turn him female and instead make the movie about him. They had a rumored 5 reshoots after dismal test audience scores and still made a bomb.
Maybe Snow White gets tons of positive press and people looking forward to a remake if its the actual story? Instead they tries to make ethnic Snow white and the 7 magical creatures that was rightly mocked and shamed into a massive reworking.
I could on but you think this stuff like this doesnt matter. It does and Disney admitted it. I get it, you like Iger. We'll have to disagree.

I never said it didn't matter. What I have said is that Peltz has nothing to do with them making changes. Peltz has no ideas on changing anything in the company that they don't already have. Peltz would be of no benefit to the company if he were on the board. He doesn't fit the style of that company. He doesn't have the vision of that company. And he is an adversary, not an ally. Just like I wouldn't want someone forcing their way into my company to tell me how to run my business. Just like I think that businesses should keep their opinions on politics to themselves, i think that investors should keep their politics out of their business decisions.

[Animal]

Paramount. Last 5 years its down 79%
Comcast. Last 5 years its up 11%
Warner Bros. Last 5 years its down 66%

Disney. Last 5 years its FLAT.

and to answer your question, there is no one even close to Disney in theme parks.

OK, so its a mixed bag.
Looks like MGM studios did pretty well:
What is the revenue of Metro Goldwyn Mayer Studios?
MGM Studios's revenue is $13.1 billion.

MGM Studios has 4,103 employees, and the revenue per employee ratio is $3,199,484. MGM Studios's peak quarterly revenue was $4.0B in 2023(q3). MGM Studios peak revenue was $13.1B in 2022. MGM Studios annual revenue for 2021 was 9.7B, 87.52% growth from 2020.

The argument made by Peltz and his allies is that the stock could have (should have) done better without all of the missteps and with better management; which include forced messaging leading to underperforming Intellectual Properties. I really dont see how thats even arguable. The company admitted as much in the SEC filing:
“Generally, our revenues and profitability are adversely impacted when our entertainment offerings and products, as well as our methods to make our offerings and products available to consumers, do not achieve sufficient consumer acceptance,” the company said in its SEC filing." I know youre smart enough to understand what thats saying. Thats the company itself saying that the customer base isnt liking what its doing-not me or Peltz. No one forced Disney and all of the companies under its umbrella to ham-handedly force the messaging. That was all a conscious choice and when stuff underperformed they attacked the fanbase as sexist and racist. Not very smart.
Maybe Star Wars makes more money if they keep to George Lucas' vision instead of turning it into girl power and emasculating every main male character.
Maybe Indiana Jones doesnt bomb if they dont try to turn him female and instead make the movie about him. They had a rumored 5 reshoots after dismal test audience scores and still made a bomb.
Maybe Snow White gets tons of positive press and people looking forward to a remake if its the actual story? Instead they tries to make ethnic Snow white and the 7 magical creatures that was rightly mocked and shamed into a massive reworking.
I could on but you think this stuff like this doesnt matter. It does and Disney admitted it. I get it, you like Iger. We'll have to disagree.

keep in mind, too. MGM is owned by Amazon. I'm not sure why MGM still reports revenues outside of Amazon. I don't think you will find Disney studio revenue separated from the entire Disney umbrella.

[CHEEZY17]

Paramount. Last 5 years its down 79%
Comcast. Last 5 years its up 11%
Warner Bros. Last 5 years its down 66%

Disney. Last 5 years its FLAT.

and to answer your question, there is no one even close to Disney in theme parks.

OK, so its a mixed bag.
Looks like MGM studios did pretty well:
What is the revenue of Metro Goldwyn Mayer Studios?
MGM Studios's revenue is $13.1 billion.

MGM Studios has 4,103 employees, and the revenue per employee ratio is $3,199,484. MGM Studios's peak quarterly revenue was $4.0B in 2023(q3). MGM Studios peak revenue was $13.1B in 2022. MGM Studios annual revenue for 2021 was 9.7B, 87.52% growth from 2020.

The argument made by Peltz and his allies is that the stock could have (should have) done better without all of the missteps and with better management; which include forced messaging leading to underperforming Intellectual Properties. I really dont see how thats even arguable. The company admitted as much in the SEC filing:
“Generally, our revenues and profitability are adversely impacted when our entertainment offerings and products, as well as our methods to make our offerings and products available to consumers, do not achieve sufficient consumer acceptance,” the company said in its SEC filing." I know youre smart enough to understand what thats saying. Thats the company itself saying that the customer base isnt liking what its doing-not me or Peltz. No one forced Disney and all of the companies under its umbrella to ham-handedly force the messaging. That was all a conscious choice and when stuff underperformed they attacked the fanbase as sexist and racist. Not very smart.
Maybe Star Wars makes more money if they keep to George Lucas' vision instead of turning it into girl power and emasculating every main male character.
Maybe Indiana Jones doesnt bomb if they dont try to turn him female and instead make the movie about him. They had a rumored 5 reshoots after dismal test audience scores and still made a bomb.
Maybe Snow White gets tons of positive press and people looking forward to a remake if its the actual story? Instead they tries to make ethnic Snow white and the 7 magical creatures that was rightly mocked and shamed into a massive reworking.
I could on but you think this stuff like this doesnt matter. It does and Disney admitted it. I get it, you like Iger. We'll have to disagree.

I never said it didn't matter. What I have said is that Peltz has nothing to do with them making changes. Peltz has no ideas on changing anything in the company that they don't already have. Peltz would be of no benefit to the company if he were on the board. He doesn't fit the style of that company. He doesn't have the vision of that company. And he is an adversary, not an ally. Just like I wouldn't want someone forcing their way into my company to tell me how to run my business. Just like I think that businesses should keep their opinions on politics to themselves, i think that investors should keep their politics out of their business decisions.

I get what youre saying, I really do. Wouldnt you agree though that sometimes a fresh set of eyes, especially after some of the disastrous decisions made by the current leadership, might be of some benefit? Maybe that set of eyes isnt Peltz (maybe it is) but a boardroom shouldnt be simply a group of "yes men". Maybe what this company needed the past 2-5 years was a board member or two to challenge and question the clearly tumultuous status quo whose focus was on profitability and quality. Those are 2 pretty important things Iger himself says they lost sight of. I simply feel this board, chaired by Iger, needs some new blood.

[Animal]

Possibly. But I tend to steer out of monday morning quarterbacking business decisions. smart people make the very best decisions that they can and I think they do it with all of the right intentions. Do those ideas end up not working sometimes? Yes. Fortunately, in this case, most of the actual mistakes that Disney made were all related. And I'm talking about the woke decisions. I think they have learned that lesson. The box office and reviews taught them that, not some wall street guy.

But that is only a small portion of the problems that Disney has run up against. This streaming idea needs work. Its a great concept, especially for a company with the vault of movies that Disney has, so I think it will work out, but they have to find the sweet spot. They can't re-invent the Netflix model, they have to come up with their own. I really don't know what's wrong with the ESPN situation. That one should either work or not work. Did they pay too much for contracts with MNF and such? I don't know.

I'm no expert, but the ABC problem seems like a problem with every major TV network. Television is morphing right now with all of the streaming and internet and pay channels and such. Its just not the industry that it once was and that has to be re-figured out. The theme parks and disney cruises are win-win situations. they create great memories and they make life long customers.

My love of the company is because of what all they own the rights to. The magic and the history. I bought disney stock after my kid was born and I saw how many disney movies we had to buy. It was disney everything. Same reason I bought Sketchers later on, etc. I have read that there will probably be five major media and entertainment companies that emerge (survive) when this dust settles. I feel like Disney will be one of them.

[CHEEZY17]

Possibly. But I tend to steer out of monday morning quarterbacking business decisions. smart people make the very best decisions that they can and I think they do it with all of the right intentions. Do those ideas end up not working sometimes? Yes. Fortunately, in this case, most of the actual mistakes that Disney made were all related. And I'm talking about the woke decisions. I think they have learned that lesson. The box office and reviews taught them that, not some wall street guy.

But that is only a small portion of the problems that Disney has run up against. This streaming idea needs work. Its a great concept, especially for a company with the vault of movies that Disney has, so I think it will work out, but they have to find the sweet spot. They can't re-invent the Netflix model, they have to come up with their own. I really don't know what's wrong with the ESPN situation. That one should either work or not work. Did they pay too much for contracts with MNF and such? I don't know.

I'm no expert, but the ABC problem seems like a problem with every major TV network. Television is morphing right now with all of the streaming and internet and pay channels and such. Its just not the industry that it once was and that has to be re-figured out. The theme parks and disney cruises are win-win situations. they create great memories and they make life long customers.

My love of the company is because of what all they own the rights to. The magic and the history. I bought disney stock after my kid was born and I saw how many disney movies we had to buy. It was disney everything. Same reason I bought Sketchers later on, etc. I have read that there will probably be five major media and entertainment companies that emerge (survive) when this dust settles. I feel like Disney will be one of them.

Long term I tend to agree which is why I bought more back around $80 a share. I felt, as Peltz did as well, that a company like Disney was undervalued and underperforming. I whole heartedly agree that the IP they own and control is basically unrivaled. If they can return to basics and fiscal responsibility, dump the preaching and give the fans what they want instead of forcing an agenda I think most everything gets better. They need to dump ESPN though. Thats a dumpster fire.

[CHEEZY17]

Aw, as if you were going anywhere.
Disney thought it could muscle up and force a DeSantis capitulation. Now that they've handily lost...
Disney set to invest up to $17B in Florida resort
https://www.yahoo.com/news/disney-set-i ... 17971.html

[CHEEZY17]

Why is DeSantis awesome? This is why. Look at this beautiful takedown of a reporter that questioned his use of taxpayer dollars to appeal a judges decision that allows "gender care" (read: surgery) on minors:

DESANTIS: Because it's wrong to mutilate minors. It is wrong to perform a sex change on a 16-year-old. You're not allowed to get a tattoo, but somehow, you can have your privates cut off? Give me a break. This is wrong, and I would also say, this has already been decided by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. They upheld Alabama's law, which was almost identical to Florida's law. This will be reversed, there's no question it will be reversed.

Think about it. When the Founding Fathers were creating the Constitution, and when the First Congress passed the Bill of Rights, or even when they passed the reconstruction amendments in the 1860s, do you think a single person involved in that thought that there was a constitutional right to do this genital mutilation? It's ridiculous. Of course, a state can protect children