Disney Desperately Seeks To Amend LGBTQIA+ Stance - Inside the Magic

Comments for Disney Desperately Seeks To Amend LGBTQIA+ Stance

A group of people standing in front of a building

22 Comments

  1. Matthew Muir

    I don’t want Disney to go back to the 1960s just because of its current CEO Bob Chapek. I just want a new CEO to come in who can restore the soul of the company, and find a decent balance between the best of the old AND the best of the new. Make no mistake, Bob Chapek is FAR more focussed on the bottom line than previous CEOs and his decisions have caused a lot of angst within the Disney community, but I think all Disney lovers who grew up post-Walt should be taken into account, rather than catering only to those who prefer Walt’s way of doing things.

    While greed can be a powerful adversary, so can purism; because I don’t think the Walt Disney Company COULD have feasibly stuck with the same post-1966 mantra of ‘What would Walt do?’ WITHOUT going bust; nor could some of the best movies, TV shows or attractions post-1966 have EVER been made. Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin and the Lion King for example are considered the absolute peak of Disney’s animated flicks, and they were all made LONG after Walt passed away, and while Disney hasn’t handled Star Wars too well, they have at least given Marvel a memorable legacy.

    I believe Disney’s best bet is to just keep electing a new CEO from the outside to keep everything fresh. I don’t believe every single one of Walt’s ideas need to be executed, nor do I believe all of his beliefs have to be religiously kept alive; all I want in this current stage is for Disney to just stay fresh, both in terms of the parks, and its media output. Disney CAN still make sequels and TV series based around the movies, just as long as they expand the stories and enrich them; that’s all that matters. As for the parks, they should bring back the perks that Chapek removed, BUT they may still pursue international expansion.

    I know full well that the world has changed too much for the Walt Disney Company to feasibly stick to the mantra of ‘What would Walt do?’. I therefore believe that as long as Disney can stay creative and financially viable, while still keeping its focus on the audience wherever it can, it should still be able to prosper. They can remove Bob Chapek by all means, BUT make sure the next CEO is both creative and savvy. That is the best way the company can continue Walt’s legacy.

    We may have to endure another year under Bob Chapek, but by February 2023, Disney could be on the threshold of a new beginning…….And I think we should hold out that hope. Shareholders just might give up on the current board and elect a new one, and the company might just be able to return to its former glory, or even a new golden era that pleases most customers.

    Please share your replies below 🙂

    1. Matthew Muir

      I’ve already called out ONE commentor called S1 who said they were going to STEAL Disney stock from massive corporate entities to get 51% to call an election against Chapek……..and to cater ONLY to the purists. That honestly sounds not only perturbing but quite disheartening.

      and how can someone just SCAM and STEAL from those corporate entities? That person must be out of their minds if they think they really CAN do it…….

      1. John

        I think that is called Sarcasm!

        1. Matthew

          I’m not sure if S1 *was* being sarcastic tho, and I got quite scared that he really WAS going to turn Disney into a dicatorship

          Why would ANYONE want to talk about doing that in this current political climate?

          It’s on the article posted yesterday about Disney deleting a post supporting LGBTQ+ rights. Everyone can look at me trying to tell S1 to get real. I just hope he realizes that his wild dreams of taking Disney back to the ‘golden age’ (to the extent that it caters only to PURISTS) has gone too far.

      2. Matthew

        The fact that he talked about turning Disney into a DICTATORSHIP and cater ONLY to purists is quite worrying. So I went out of my way to humiliate him for his genuinely FASCIST outlook on what Disney should be

      3. Doc

        Actually in a way, that is what Roy Disney Jr did and then brought in Eisner.

        1. Matthew

          You mean Roy actually STOLE stock?

          Well if he did then at least his intentions were good…….right?

          Like I said, greed can be a powerful adversary, so can purism;

        2. Matthew

          If you see anymore talk like S1’s plans to just DESTROY parts of the post-Walt company that most people LIKE, then you should go out of your way to call those people out

        3. Matthew

          Hopefully Roy was NOT catering exclusively to purists

    2. Matthew

      If Chapek has another bad quarter, shareholders *might* just consider voting against him

  2. Ethan

    If anybody bothered to read the bill it does not even mention the word “gay” or “LGBCDEF”, so anybody who calls this the “don’t say gay” bill is only pandering to the left who are trying to make the bill out to be something it isn’t. It simply states that sex education, sex orientation, gender identity, etc (either straight or gay or one of the other things) shouldn’t be taught to school children in K-3rd grade. I’ve been trying with no luck to get anybody to give me a good reason why things like that should be taught to school children that age. Anybody care to give it a shot?

    1. Yay

      This love for the community is triggering all the racists, I mean republicans, keep it up.

      1. Ethan

        That’s all you can say? I asked a simple question, and still waiting for an answer from somebody, anybody! Keep being a sheep!

      2. Yay Yay!

        Yay! a liberal playing the race card when nobody even mentions race! That’s getting a little old wouldn’t you say?

  3. Ace

    Good, Disney needs to pay for its sins. The fact that they are even pandering to white nationalism is disgusting.

    1. peterparker

      Disney pandering to white nationalism? Your comment is a trainwreck of buzzwords handed to you by others. Is there “black nationalism?” Brown, green, or blue? The fact is that the vast majority of people no matter our skin tone in the U.S. LOVE our country, flaws and all. That’s *usually* called “patriotism”, but I don’t think most true patriots would really ascribe that ideal to the Disney company. Walt? Yes. Disney? No.

      But yeah, why did you bother to throw this particular bomb? Its incorrect, out of place in this discussion, and contains strong-leaning concepts that are false at the core.

    2. stephen

      Being able to come up with your own thoughts without someone telling you what to say is a wonderful trait. You should give it a try sometime.

      1. peterparker

        Original, stephen. And so very thought-provoking. Thank you for gracing us all with your incredibly deep, epic, Rodin-level wisdom. I should hope to become like you one day.

    3. Love

      Hate has no place in Disney

      1. Ethan

        The bill HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HATE!!! It simply states that sex education, sexual orientation, gender identity should NOT be taught to kids in grades K-3. Please explain to me how that is hate and why its a good idea to teach these types of things to kids this age. Please! I’m begging. Nobody can explain it to me!

        1. Freddie

          It has to do with erasure. If a student comes to class (K to 3rd) with their 2 fathers, the bill says the teacher cannot acknowledge that both men are the child’s parents. To do so, in front of their students, would open themselves up to litigation by the parent of another child.

          Why? Because the conservative, very likely republican parent, would say their child was being “taught” about gay parents.

          If a child comes to class who is biologically male, but identifies as female and wishes to be called Crystal, the teacher (by this law) cannot acknowledge this child’s identity, even if Crystal’s parents are okay and accepting of this. Because then you have to explain to those children why Crystal is a girl, and not a boy.

          This would include telling children why it is not okay to bully a child that shows affection for someone of the same gender, or shows themselves to be more effeminate.

          The bill doesn’t specifically say “gay”, or “transgender”, or “lesbian”. But you know, YOU KNOW, who it is targeting.

          1. Ethan

            Nope sorry Freddie! I could say the same thing about little johnnie who has 2 dads wondering why everybody else in his class only has 1. The bill simply states that sexual orientation, sex education, gender identity can NOT be taught in the schools to kids in grades k-3. It has nothing to do with only acknowledging one parent if the parents are gay. Nice try though. Keep spininng!

Comments are closed.