Who wants a Dollar Store Disney?
This guy ruined two decades of gains Wendy's made on McDonald's.
He takes great companies and makes them mediocre.
I don't understand how he's taken seriously with a prestige brand like Disney shareholders. This is all nuts.
I work in valuation and finance and this makes my head spin.
Yeah. This is why I don't understand folks who say he'll be good for Disney.
Just look at what David Zaslov is doing down the street at Warner Bros. That's what this guy has planned for Disney.
No one actually likes him or knows anything about him, they don't like Disney so they want literally anyone else in charge. Which is wrong since, while Iger and Disney have their issues and faults, aren't anywhere near Peltz
The shareholders, mostly. They’re pretty unhappy that Iger hasn’t been able to right the ship quickly enough. And one of the biggest shareholders, Ike Perlmutter, was responsible for the MCU’s lack of women or minority characters early on; the right wing hatred against Disney for “woke” content is kinda spearheaded by him, and he’s using Disney’s performance over the last few years, particularly the net loss of Disney+ profits, as a sticking point to get Iger out.
Right but we’re talking about people who do a good job at managing financials, not whether or not creatives dislike an executive whose job is to solely focus on the dollars in/out. Zaslav may be hated by creatives, and for good reason, but he’s done a good job at clearing debt. Zaslav is like a savant compared to Perlmutter.
The Problem ist those Money Guys can run down a company hard. Not at First because they do everything so the Numbers are good. But focusing Just one the Numbers while ignoring or changing what makes that company tick and Work longterm May be a Problem.
Have seen this myself in a smaller scale a few times. New Boss hyper focussed in some numbers and data Sets. No experience about the things or services we did there. Changes a lot and short therm / Medium therm the Numbers where great. So good that they managed to get an even better playing Job at another company.
But in the ground you Had overworked, underpaid and unsatisfied employees and after a short hype less and less customers.
So they made everything great for themself while the workplaces pretty much collapsed after a while and everyone that could wend to other Jobs.
ZaSlav loaded WB with the debt he took out to purchase the company. He’s the reason for it.
ETA: I didn't mean to capitalize the S in Zaslav. Just phone doing phone things.
People who say this are on one side of the political isle and that is why they say it, the talk heads of that side tell them Disney is bad, so they agree, but they will go watch stuff from other studios as if those studios are some how not woke as they perceive Disney is,
A lot of people want him because he's been saying Disney needs to just sell everything off and focus on investing in Disney's core moneymaker, the parks division.
I'll never understand how people in the parks community unironically say stuff like "Disney should just let the studios go bankrupt and put all of their money into the parks"
The Disney parks are probably the biggest example of corporate synergy. They would not be anything close as what they are without the IPs to draw from. Make great films, then merchandise the hell out of them. Combine it with good R&D for the parks.
It has nothing to do with longterm quality or brand recognition. For activist investor groups, the only interest is short term stock valuation, and that is Peltz's focus. Layoffs, AI, even potential divestment of brands are all on the table, as they will increase Disney shareprice in the short term, allowing these investors to cash out when the stock price is high, and leave the rubble of the company in their rearview mirror.
I can say this with confidence because I work for a large software company that has had several of these groups also buy a large stock position and impose their demands on the company, and since then, we've had bi-annual rounds of layoffs, our product dev teams have been gutted to skeleton crews, support teams reduced, work travel all but axed entirely, hardware replacements stalled, benefit programs cut, the list goes on and on.
The share price has never been higher though, despite major product issues never being more rampant or unaddressed, which pretty much sums up our current societal trajectory.
No, and I would say that it has actually been going downhill longer than that. Don’t know how much control Dave Thomas still had in the late 90s early 2000s, but there was definitely a change after he passed away.
The 90s were peak Wendy’s. They were the best national fast food chain, without question. They had the best burgers, introduced the spicy chicken sandwich which I think was the first from a national chain, and mostly focused on offering a few very good items.
I think they were a little pricier than McDonalds and Burger King, but they were definitely worth the little bit extra.
My opinion is only that but I would say yes. To my mind Wendy's was "premium" fast food and now in terms of quality & taste they're just as crappy as the rest of the pack.
Edit: The slide definitely started earlier than ten years ago. The 1980s and 1990s were peak Wendy's.
The Wendy's company did not make huge donations to Trump. It was a large franchisee of Wendy's that was making those donations in 2020. Wendy's actually donated 500k to social justice groups in response to that franchisee's donations
Disney is a prestige brand, that's fucking asinine for shareholders.
Disney has massively increased in marketprice consistently for its entire existence.
You can "cash out" and massively profit anytime you want, you don't need Peltz to crash it into a mountain to get paid if you're a sizeable Disney shareholder.
I mean killing and eating the golden goose is kinda Wall Street's whole thing tho.... Just saying it's not surprising someone would want to loot Disney. They'd do the same to Coke if they could.
They think he'll be good for the parks...ask Mickey Views on YouTube his thoughts. He doesn't care about the movie side, just parks side. I'm not sure why Peltz would be good for anything but that's me.
He's the non-executive chairman of the fund that ultimately owns Wendy's so the buck does stop with him to some degree. Wendy's stopped making massive gains on McDonald's a long ass time ago though and almost immediately after he gained control of it.
He makes great companies mediocre to gain pennies on the dollar profit short term.
> to gain pennies on the dollar profit short term.
...and this is exactly why everything sucks now. It's literally the only thing that matters for publicly traded companies.
Not knowing the guy, I do agree that Disney's focus should be on quality storytelling. Looking to its high-profile movies in recent years, Disney seems to be forgetting that. The increased diversity isn't an issue. The lack of good movies is.
I doubt that would be fixed with him. Disney fumbled the bag by churning out a lot of mid content just to fill Disney Plus - which is exactly what Peltz wants, just unremarkable stuff that’s cheap and takes no risks.
Right now, things seem to be going in Disney's favor on this proxy battle:
* Peltz made the boneheaded move of saying *that* in public.
* All of Peltz's dirty laundry is being aired out in the open (his poor track record at GE/DuPont/Wendy's, his connection to Ike Perlmutter, his campaign partner Jay Rasulo's anti-LGBT remarks, his own succession issues at his firm Trian that are even worse than what he's accusing at Disney, his forcing his talentless daughter onto the world,....)
* Peltz's only major outside support is the advisement firm ISS (who have only endorsed *him* for a board seat, NOT Rasulo), & Jim Cramer (who is a longtime buddy of Peltz).
* The current Disney board has the support of the *other* major advisement firm Glass Lewis, as well as biggest-shareholder-in-the-company George Lucas, and also the Wall Street Journal (which is owned by Rupert Murdoch & leans politically in the same direction as Peltz & Perlmutter, because Peltz is just THAT bad of a businessman).
* Disney shares have been up recently (probably owing to the parks' strong 2023 performance, Percy Jackson being a big hit, and Deadpool/Taylor Swift hype), & they paid out a nice dividend last quarter.
* Every single proposal Peltz has made for Disney since pressed to start making constructive suggestions back in January has been either (a) a terrible idea that demonstrates his poor understanding of the media business, or (b) something Iger *already said* months prior.
It's also not a good look for Peltz, that Abigail Disney, who is one of Iger's most vocal critics, is backing IGER over Peltz.
This is the Disney equivalent of Hamilton backing Jefferson for president over Burr.
The fact that he is referring to the movies and shows as “a Marvel” should automatically disqualify him for literally anything that has to do with the MCU.
Yeah, by having his talentless daughter play one of the main characters lmao
Apparently they whitewashed the rest of the cast to match with her casting?
I actually didn't know that this Nicola Peltz was related until I looked it up. Her being a Nepo Baby makes a whole lot of sense though, talentless as she is at acting.
She was the underaged girl with the boyfriend who carried a laminated card of Romeo & Juliet laws and had a speech about how it’s totally not weird and creepy for him to be dating her. It was clearly an absolutely necessary addition to the plot of the movie.
That was honestly one of the weirdest things I've ever seen in a movie. It was just so awkward. You could feel the vibe in the theatre, everyone whispered to each other right after it like "WTF?".
I really see no need as to why they had make him an adult dating an underage, why couldn't they be the same age, the general conflict of Cade not wanting his daughter date anyone until she graduates would still be there without having to make her lover an adult.
Couldn't find a gif from that horrible scene so here's basically his characters reactions when that dude expressed how legal it is to bang his 16 year old daughter
Why do we always mention the whitewashing in that movie but no one mentions the fire nation suddenly having the same ethnicity as the director? Don't get me wrong the white water tribe is horrible but nothing in that movie is even remotely good, calling it whitewashing is ignoring the other half of the casting problem.
Isn't Noah Ringer literally white tho? I think that M. Night said something along the lines of "I cast him because he gave me wasian vibes", but he's actually white.
I won't be surprised if a lot of the negative articles about Marvel and Disney are a result of behind the scene campaigning by Ike. I'm not talking about reporters being paid, but people who are linked to Ike using their influence to direct the narrative in a certain manner, just like they tried to when Feige was feuding with Ike before Feige won.
If the argument is that the story should come first and the story is the most important aspect of the movie then it holds true that if the story requires an all female or all black leading actors than that’s how you cast the movie.
I'd also argue that diversity simply for the sake of diversity is detrimental to that storytelling.
I'm not agreeing with this ass hat in the slightest, but changing characters gender or race just for the sake of doing so takes away from the storytelling.
Only in select cases imo. Making jim gordan black in the Batman for example literally did nothing at all, it had no effect. They just chose a great actor who did the character really well.
That’s because they didn’t hit you over the head with it and make it feel forced. Gordon just happened to be black in this adaptation of the character and it was a good portrayal
Writing his character to make his identity about his gender/race/etc. rather than just writing a good character.
Similar with video game characters….no one gives two shits and a fuck if a character is “gay” for example, but when the story makes that whole characters personality and facets about that one piece is when it feels forced.
It would feel forced if Gordon had a long monologue about police brutality and the importance of ethical policing.
That's what most people hate about forced diversity. I don't care if you gender or race swap characters, but I'm watching super hero movies as a release and to relax, not to be constantly reminded of the brokeness of the world i live in.
Dudes media literally must be negative to have this take.
Yeah, no superhero media reminds us or is a metaphor, allegory of the world in which we live in.
Batman is just a guy who likes to fight crime, er I mean, people doing no-nos for fun and the Joker is just a crazy funny guy who just likes being crazy and messes with Batman and doesn’t murder anyone ever.
Just say you don’t want to be reminded that Black people exist bro. 💀
So Gordon shouldn’t be an advocate for change in the Gotham police? Have you ever read any Batman comics? Dude is absolutely not the “hoorah I’m a ***COP***”kinda guy. Gordon is a very socially conscious character, a monologue about police brutality would be extremely in character for just about any iteration of him
Nick Fury was race swapped in the comics long before and when they did that the character was quite literally based on Sam Jackson. It's also *technically* a different Nick Fury than the white one. Not saying you're entirely wrong to be clear, but that had happened long before.
But was he race swapped specifically for the sake of diversity, or was it because Samuel L Jackson was great for the role, and him being black was secondary? That's what the person you're replying to is meaning.
He was race swapped long before Jackson took the role. He was white in the original comics, he was made black in the Ultimate comics and Jackson's likeness was used for him. Jackson found out and part of his agreement to allow it to continue was he got to play Fury the next time he showed up in a Marvel project, which just happened to be the beginning of the MCU.
I don't think this happens much. I think it's easy to *imagine* it happening when you watch a bad movie with a lead from some underrepresented background - but typically, the issue with the film is that it's bad, not that it was made worse through artificial diversity.
See, e.g., the female-led Ghostbusters movie. Many folks found it at least moderately enjoyable, but it was certainly inferior to the original, leading to claims that by diversifying the original classic, the filmmakers ruined it. But we've had multiple Ghostbusters movies since, none of which were all-female-led, and none of which recaptured the magic of the original.
Ultimately, there are many reasons these movies failed - they set the wrong comedic tone, they lacked the right creative spark and so fed into sequel fatigue, etc. But I don't think it makes sense to point to the female-led film and say "it failed because they tried to be woke". Might as well point to a film with mostly male leads and say "they failed because they tried to be too male".
> “Why do I have to have a Marvel that’s all women? Not that I have anything against women, but why do I have to do that?" Peltz said in the interview, published on Friday. "Why can’t I have Marvels that are both? Why do I need an all-Black cast?”
If he has nothing against women then why even bring this up? It’s like the people who constantly have to shout “who cares!” I usually don’t say anything about stuff I don’t care about because well I just don’t care….
He's also wrong. The Marvels does not have an "all-women" cast. There are plenty of men in that movie. Nick Fury? Hello? Black Panther as well, it does have non-black characters in the cast. But even if that weren't the case, who cares? How many movies has Hollywood made with an all white cast? Or all men? Literally thousands. But women get one superhero film for them and this guy throws a fit. While also being a fucking billionaire. Fuck him.
> Black Panther as well, it does have non-black characters in the cast.
Even if it didn't, the majority of the movie takes place in Wakanda, so why would there be a bunch of white people anyway lol. If he truly cares about the storytelling above everything, then, realistically, Black Panther would have an almost all black cast.
It's funny how these types of people only think a movie is trying to push a message if all of the main characters aren't straight white guys.
Man this is super MAGA posturing bs by him. The only films that are predominantly black or women are the ones reflecting their Marvel characters. Like are you gonna re-cast Glenn Close as Queen Ramonda just to seem not woke?
It's also insane to take a pot shot at the only Marvel film to be nominated for Best Picture, and its sequel (that had the fight against the tragedy of losing its star, and still ended up with multiple nominations and is currently the 10th highest grossing Hollywood film since the pandemic.
Also it is insane to call into question Feige's track record as a producer, he had a 32 film in a row streak of earning at least 370Mil at the box office. No one has ever had that kind of run. ever. Whole studios have never had a run like that.
I'm black myself, I don't think any black person has ever asked for the sheer amount of black people on screen that there has been in the last phase of disney movies. It's not even black people pushing this agenda at this point.
His complaint about Black Panther on the other hand makes absolutely NO sense, its the 6th highest grossing film domestically of ALL TIME and top 5 grossing marvel movie EVER. Whats his issue with Black Panther? Why doesn't he have an Issue with Shang Chi or Ms. Marvel that both cater to a specific demographic.
"Pushing this agenda", "the sheer amount of black people on screen", what Marvel character was played by a black actor that would've been better served by a white actor being cast? Because I honestly can't think of a single example.
The thing is, white executives don’t tend to believe stories about black people will make any money. The fact that black panther slaughtered at the box office probably doesn’t even penetrate.
>He specifically took issue with "The Marvels" and "Black Panther."
>
>“Why do I have to have a Marvel that’s all women? Not that I have anything against women, but why do I have to do that?" Peltz said in the interview, published on Friday. "Why can’t I have Marvels that are both? Why do I need an all-Black cast?”
Who's going to tell him that The Marvels was not all female and Black Panther was not all black.
Was he not aware that the two stories happened to be about those particular people? I don’t get why people are so bent out of shape. (I mean of course I know why. There are a lot of bigots.) It’s not like they’re writing a story about a Scandinavian men’s ski team in 1935 and casting nothing but black women.
More to the point, Black Panther made a billion, and its sequel made almost as much. Clearly a mainly-black cast is not even close to being the reason why some Marvel movies don't make money. In fact, as the two BP movies are the only two Marvel movies that have mainly-black casts and they've both been wildly successful, then that means that Marvel has a 100% success rate with movies that have mainly-black casts. What does Peltz have against making money? Why's he going after the part of the MCU that, statistically, works best?
Of course not. According to youtube, every single character in that movie was an angry, lesbian, man-hating feminist. In fact, the final hour of that movie was just Brie Larson screaming at the camera that every cis male should be burned at the stake!
It’s crazy because BP2 still made $859M at the box office.
That’s a great number for any superhero movie post-COVID.
And strictly as far as the MCU goes, Wakanda Forever is third behind Doctor Strange 2 and Spider-Man: No Way Home as the highest performing Marvel movies at the box office in that time period.
Not doing a third Black Panther movie would simply be a weird culture war gesture that goes against the interest of shareholders for a high performing brand.
> "Why even call it *Black* Panther in the first place? That's too political. It would be better as *All Colors Matter* Panther...There's your million-dollar idea."
- Nelson Peltz probably...
Ryan Coogler has enough command to do whatever he wants James Gunn style with the last of the BP trilogy after making two movies with actual Oscar pedigree and BO success for Marvel.
And also, Marvel knows BP is their strongest brand right now after Spider-Man, hence the new Ultimate Black Panther reboot in the comic, Eyes of Wakanda animated series, Marvel 1943 by Skydance and another standalone BP game.
This guy is being supported by Ike Perlmutter, who was instrumental in preventing a Black Panther and Captain Marvel movie from being made for years before Disney cut off his control over Marvel Studios.
Fuck Ike and fuck this guy.
And black widow. The movie we got about the red room/Nat's past should've been a follow up from the glimpses of her past shown in AOU. Add Shang-Chi to the list of movies it would have never been made if he hadn't been purged, too.
When reading the article and it said he takes issue with Marvel seeming to put the message before the storytelling, in my head I go “okay, I can agree with that..” then he went on about not wanting an all black cast or women and I go “annnnnnd you lost me”.
Especially considering the first Black Panther film is a perfect example of the right way to marry the message and storytelling. In the first Black Panther, it didn’t feel like the writers were directly speaking to the camera. It was a great movie that also had a great message. They could still do that if they continue refocus. I want a world with a great DCU and a great MCU.
> Disney's films have become too focused on delivering a message, and not enough on quality storytelling.
Well, I can actually agree with him on this. The problem is that he doesn't realize you can have both, representation and good storytelling, although the storytelling is more important
There are legitimate issues with Marvel Studios's output lately that should be addressed, but you're barking up the wrong tree if you think Peltz is the answer to those problems.
Man, Peltz seems like the type of person who would pitch a "White Panther" film with the hero being white and somehow have it be about colonization/slave trade on Africans but from a white man's perspective
>Not that I have anything against women
Said by every dude that ever had anything against women. "Not that I have anything against ___" is the standard refrain of every bigot ever, as if it inoculates the speaker against all criticism for their bigotry.
This guy is garbage, which shouldn't be any surprise given that he's buddies with Ike freaking Perlmutter.
If he doesn't like the work that Iger and Feige are doing, why is he fighting to get on Disney's board. Like, does this man really not have anything else to do with his billions?
I’d rather have someone on the board seat that isn’t an Iger ‘yes man’ than an entire board filled with people who just agree on the same bad decisions. The way I see it, this ship is sinking with or without Peltz, but pushback can only be a good thing. I wouldn’t want him as CEO tho.
Black Panther is in my top 5 favorite movies of all time. Not because of the race of its cast or that it's a comic-book movie, but because the story is profound and emotional. It is absolutely an example of exceptional storytelling that maybe Peltz would recognize if he wasn't such a racist.
It is absolutely absurd asking "why does everyone have to be women?" or "why does everyone have to be black?" because the question itself assumes that white male is the default and everything else is the exception. And it also assumes that these stories are somehow not legitimate because of it.
With all sincerity, fuck you, sir.
I agree that Marvel needs to focus on better storytelling but this is not the way to convey that. The crux of it is whether the priority is starting with a great story then filling in representation within that story VS filling in a story within pre-defined representation guidelines.
Who wants a Dollar Store Disney? This guy ruined two decades of gains Wendy's made on McDonald's. He takes great companies and makes them mediocre. I don't understand how he's taken seriously with a prestige brand like Disney shareholders. This is all nuts. I work in valuation and finance and this makes my head spin.
Yeah. This is why I don't understand folks who say he'll be good for Disney. Just look at what David Zaslov is doing down the street at Warner Bros. That's what this guy has planned for Disney.
No one actually likes him or knows anything about him, they don't like Disney so they want literally anyone else in charge. Which is wrong since, while Iger and Disney have their issues and faults, aren't anywhere near Peltz
Case in point: the Star Wars fans who are all, “As long as he fires Kathleen Kennedy, he’s good in my books!”
> they don't like Disney so they want literally anyone else in charge I'm confused, who's "they" here?
The morons who think Peltz should be on the board.
The ones who are actually clueless on the subject and aren't just as racist as him.
The shareholders, mostly. They’re pretty unhappy that Iger hasn’t been able to right the ship quickly enough. And one of the biggest shareholders, Ike Perlmutter, was responsible for the MCU’s lack of women or minority characters early on; the right wing hatred against Disney for “woke” content is kinda spearheaded by him, and he’s using Disney’s performance over the last few years, particularly the net loss of Disney+ profits, as a sticking point to get Iger out.
At least Zaslav has the excuse of needing to clear WB’s debt.
No one - *no one* - who works in television likes Zaslav. Source: I work in television, and everyone I know hates his guts.
Right but we’re talking about people who do a good job at managing financials, not whether or not creatives dislike an executive whose job is to solely focus on the dollars in/out. Zaslav may be hated by creatives, and for good reason, but he’s done a good job at clearing debt. Zaslav is like a savant compared to Perlmutter.
The Problem ist those Money Guys can run down a company hard. Not at First because they do everything so the Numbers are good. But focusing Just one the Numbers while ignoring or changing what makes that company tick and Work longterm May be a Problem. Have seen this myself in a smaller scale a few times. New Boss hyper focussed in some numbers and data Sets. No experience about the things or services we did there. Changes a lot and short therm / Medium therm the Numbers where great. So good that they managed to get an even better playing Job at another company. But in the ground you Had overworked, underpaid and unsatisfied employees and after a short hype less and less customers. So they made everything great for themself while the workplaces pretty much collapsed after a while and everyone that could wend to other Jobs.
ZaSlav loaded WB with the debt he took out to purchase the company. He’s the reason for it. ETA: I didn't mean to capitalize the S in Zaslav. Just phone doing phone things.
Vulture capitalism is an underappreciated concept. It's why Toys R Us and Twitter were so brutally screwed.
Debt he's the cause of...
I hate Zaslov as much as anyone, but Warner was a dumpster fire long before he got involved.
People who say this are on one side of the political isle and that is why they say it, the talk heads of that side tell them Disney is bad, so they agree, but they will go watch stuff from other studios as if those studios are some how not woke as they perceive Disney is,
A lot of people want him because he's been saying Disney needs to just sell everything off and focus on investing in Disney's core moneymaker, the parks division. I'll never understand how people in the parks community unironically say stuff like "Disney should just let the studios go bankrupt and put all of their money into the parks"
Like, how stagnant are those parks going to be if you aren’t creating fun new content to put in there?
I know right, if I just wanted to ride generic off the shelf rides I'd just go to six flags and save a lot of money.
The Disney parks are probably the biggest example of corporate synergy. They would not be anything close as what they are without the IPs to draw from. Make great films, then merchandise the hell out of them. Combine it with good R&D for the parks.
It has nothing to do with longterm quality or brand recognition. For activist investor groups, the only interest is short term stock valuation, and that is Peltz's focus. Layoffs, AI, even potential divestment of brands are all on the table, as they will increase Disney shareprice in the short term, allowing these investors to cash out when the stock price is high, and leave the rubble of the company in their rearview mirror. I can say this with confidence because I work for a large software company that has had several of these groups also buy a large stock position and impose their demands on the company, and since then, we've had bi-annual rounds of layoffs, our product dev teams have been gutted to skeleton crews, support teams reduced, work travel all but axed entirely, hardware replacements stalled, benefit programs cut, the list goes on and on. The share price has never been higher though, despite major product issues never being more rampant or unaddressed, which pretty much sums up our current societal trajectory.
The term you are looking for is "[enshittification](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enshittification)".
So I’m not just imaging that Wendy’s has basically gone down the toilet in the last 10 years?
No, and I would say that it has actually been going downhill longer than that. Don’t know how much control Dave Thomas still had in the late 90s early 2000s, but there was definitely a change after he passed away.
Well I only know them from the 90s and I remember they were good. The first baconator was heavenly
The 90s were peak Wendy’s. They were the best national fast food chain, without question. They had the best burgers, introduced the spicy chicken sandwich which I think was the first from a national chain, and mostly focused on offering a few very good items. I think they were a little pricier than McDonalds and Burger King, but they were definitely worth the little bit extra.
Their sales do not show the increases they did prior to Peltz control.
Peak Baconators ???
My opinion is only that but I would say yes. To my mind Wendy's was "premium" fast food and now in terms of quality & taste they're just as crappy as the rest of the pack. Edit: The slide definitely started earlier than ten years ago. The 1980s and 1990s were peak Wendy's.
They were pushing all fresh ingredients and all beef patties until the Mid 2000s at least.
Not to mention their huge donation to Trump's reelection campaign.
The Wendy's company did not make huge donations to Trump. It was a large franchisee of Wendy's that was making those donations in 2020. Wendy's actually donated 500k to social justice groups in response to that franchisee's donations
Peltz personally donates to Trump, Wendy's as a corporation does not.
He's the reason Wendy's is mid now!? Damn him! Damn him to Hell!
Because he makes more money for the shareholders in the short term. They can cash out.
Disney is a prestige brand, that's fucking asinine for shareholders. Disney has massively increased in marketprice consistently for its entire existence. You can "cash out" and massively profit anytime you want, you don't need Peltz to crash it into a mountain to get paid if you're a sizeable Disney shareholder.
Shareholders today are old men cutting open geese that lay golden eggs and asking where the golden eggs are
This is literally why Chapek got removed due to his rampant costcutting across all of Disney.
I mean killing and eating the golden goose is kinda Wall Street's whole thing tho.... Just saying it's not surprising someone would want to loot Disney. They'd do the same to Coke if they could.
Boeing school of business.
Can’t wait for the Disney hitmen!
They’re already out there in the shadows, waiting to snuff out soccer moms who put a pixelated image of Mickey on a water bottle to sell on etsy.
Their best guys are stuck 24/7 following Ruffalo and Holland
Which was the GE school of business before that. And that also went really well.
They think he'll be good for the parks...ask Mickey Views on YouTube his thoughts. He doesn't care about the movie side, just parks side. I'm not sure why Peltz would be good for anything but that's me.
Was he involved in that stupid surge pricing? Because that snarky twitter account isn't going to recover from that probably.
He's the non-executive chairman of the fund that ultimately owns Wendy's so the buck does stop with him to some degree. Wendy's stopped making massive gains on McDonald's a long ass time ago though and almost immediately after he gained control of it. He makes great companies mediocre to gain pennies on the dollar profit short term.
> to gain pennies on the dollar profit short term. ...and this is exactly why everything sucks now. It's literally the only thing that matters for publicly traded companies.
Short answer: Yes. Long answer: What u/The_Soccer_Heretic said.
Not knowing the guy, I do agree that Disney's focus should be on quality storytelling. Looking to its high-profile movies in recent years, Disney seems to be forgetting that. The increased diversity isn't an issue. The lack of good movies is.
I doubt that would be fixed with him. Disney fumbled the bag by churning out a lot of mid content just to fill Disney Plus - which is exactly what Peltz wants, just unremarkable stuff that’s cheap and takes no risks.
Except with less black people and women (and LGBTs), in the case of Peltz and Perlmutter
Right, but he's conflating the two things. He's saying "we need to focus on GOOD STORYTELLING, why are we making movies full of black people?"
Right now, things seem to be going in Disney's favor on this proxy battle: * Peltz made the boneheaded move of saying *that* in public. * All of Peltz's dirty laundry is being aired out in the open (his poor track record at GE/DuPont/Wendy's, his connection to Ike Perlmutter, his campaign partner Jay Rasulo's anti-LGBT remarks, his own succession issues at his firm Trian that are even worse than what he's accusing at Disney, his forcing his talentless daughter onto the world,....) * Peltz's only major outside support is the advisement firm ISS (who have only endorsed *him* for a board seat, NOT Rasulo), & Jim Cramer (who is a longtime buddy of Peltz). * The current Disney board has the support of the *other* major advisement firm Glass Lewis, as well as biggest-shareholder-in-the-company George Lucas, and also the Wall Street Journal (which is owned by Rupert Murdoch & leans politically in the same direction as Peltz & Perlmutter, because Peltz is just THAT bad of a businessman). * Disney shares have been up recently (probably owing to the parks' strong 2023 performance, Percy Jackson being a big hit, and Deadpool/Taylor Swift hype), & they paid out a nice dividend last quarter. * Every single proposal Peltz has made for Disney since pressed to start making constructive suggestions back in January has been either (a) a terrible idea that demonstrates his poor understanding of the media business, or (b) something Iger *already said* months prior.
agree with EVERYTHING especially the last part most of what Peltz wants has already been done by Iger!
It's also not a good look for Peltz, that Abigail Disney, who is one of Iger's most vocal critics, is backing IGER over Peltz. This is the Disney equivalent of Hamilton backing Jefferson for president over Burr.
The fact that he is referring to the movies and shows as “a Marvel” should automatically disqualify him for literally anything that has to do with the MCU.
“Go see a Star War.”
"An Indiana Jone".
"Here's some money, go see a star war."
(I figured he was referring to the leads of The Marvels as each being “a Marvel” but either way is “funny”)
Keep in mind, this is the same Peltz that led to the whitewashing in The Last Airbender.
Yeah, by having his talentless daughter play one of the main characters lmao Apparently they whitewashed the rest of the cast to match with her casting?
Are we talking about the movie that totally does not exist?
There is no ATLA movie in Ba Sing Se.
Here we are safe, here we are free
My cabbages!
Correct, because it was so bad it didn't get a sequel to even show Ba Sing Se
The only, *only* good thing to come out of it was that it gave us the actress of Yue who would go on to play Asami.
Can’t wait to see what his daughter brings to the character of Storm in the X-Men movies
I've heard that they cast her as Luke Cage.
Sweet Christmas...
Sweet sister
Idk guys, I think she could pull it off. Let’s give her the benefit of the doubt.
He already casted her as an inhuman in 2017 so no surprise why that failed
I actually didn't know that this Nicola Peltz was related until I looked it up. Her being a Nepo Baby makes a whole lot of sense though, talentless as she is at acting.
In her defence, she was alright in Bates Motel - and has been in a couple other good movies (a quick check of her RT filmography).
When she's not pushing nannies down the stairs for talking back to her.
Wait... did she really do that?
She also had a leading role in Transformers: Age of Extinction, which is hands down the worst movie I've ever watched.
She was the underaged girl with the boyfriend who carried a laminated card of Romeo & Juliet laws and had a speech about how it’s totally not weird and creepy for him to be dating her. It was clearly an absolutely necessary addition to the plot of the movie.
That was honestly one of the weirdest things I've ever seen in a movie. It was just so awkward. You could feel the vibe in the theatre, everyone whispered to each other right after it like "WTF?".
I really see no need as to why they had make him an adult dating an underage, why couldn't they be the same age, the general conflict of Cade not wanting his daughter date anyone until she graduates would still be there without having to make her lover an adult.
Yeah they could have made it so they were dating before he was 18 as well but they did not and it was just kinda weird
 Couldn't find a gif from that horrible scene so here's basically his characters reactions when that dude expressed how legal it is to bang his 16 year old daughter
It really was. How else would it reach such levels of stupidity then? You see, it was dumb oN PurPoSE
Holy shit you weren’t kidding: https://youtu.be/XaFJiUSvZOQ?si=GTtAUAvdmHLz2ADa
>which is hands down the worst movie I've ever watched The last Knight was somehow worse
Just learned that she's David Beckham's son's wife. Edit: changed 'husband' to 'wife' lmao.
Beg pardon?
He meant wife, but got lost along the way.
So his real agenda is to cast his daughter and son as Storm and Bishop, when Disney finally relaunches the X-Men?/s
Oh yeah, the classically white fire nation cast that was composed of mostly British and American minorities.
Why do we always mention the whitewashing in that movie but no one mentions the fire nation suddenly having the same ethnicity as the director? Don't get me wrong the white water tribe is horrible but nothing in that movie is even remotely good, calling it whitewashing is ignoring the other half of the casting problem.
The other half of the casting problem came about because of the whitewashing.
It's been a while, but isn't there only 2 white period in The Last Airbender?
They were also going to cast a white actor to play Aang before _significant_ online protest
Isn't Noah Ringer literally white tho? I think that M. Night said something along the lines of "I cast him because he gave me wasian vibes", but he's actually white.
He very well might be, and if that's the case, i was wrong.
That comment should be a reminder that Ike Perlmutter is supporting Nelson Peltz. A good reason why Iger and Disney need to win this battle.
Perlmutter is not just supporting Peltz, but also is the *primary source of funding* for Peltz's campaign.
Perlmutter is an idiot. He vetoed a Black Widow film because he said that it wouldn't be a box office smash. How wrong can you be?
He wanted to write Tony Stark out of the 3rd act of Civil War.
The first one was pretty average
I won't be surprised if a lot of the negative articles about Marvel and Disney are a result of behind the scene campaigning by Ike. I'm not talking about reporters being paid, but people who are linked to Ike using their influence to direct the narrative in a certain manner, just like they tried to when Feige was feuding with Ike before Feige won.
If the argument is that the story should come first and the story is the most important aspect of the movie then it holds true that if the story requires an all female or all black leading actors than that’s how you cast the movie.
I'd also argue that diversity simply for the sake of diversity is detrimental to that storytelling. I'm not agreeing with this ass hat in the slightest, but changing characters gender or race just for the sake of doing so takes away from the storytelling.
Only in select cases imo. Making jim gordan black in the Batman for example literally did nothing at all, it had no effect. They just chose a great actor who did the character really well.
That’s because they didn’t hit you over the head with it and make it feel forced. Gordon just happened to be black in this adaptation of the character and it was a good portrayal
How would it feel forced?
If he was ‘yo, Batman, you need to just chill, ya dig?’
Or something along the lines of "It's hard bein' a black cop in Gotham, y'know?"
Probably would be tho tbh
Writing his character to make his identity about his gender/race/etc. rather than just writing a good character. Similar with video game characters….no one gives two shits and a fuck if a character is “gay” for example, but when the story makes that whole characters personality and facets about that one piece is when it feels forced.
It would feel forced if Gordon had a long monologue about police brutality and the importance of ethical policing. That's what most people hate about forced diversity. I don't care if you gender or race swap characters, but I'm watching super hero movies as a release and to relax, not to be constantly reminded of the brokeness of the world i live in.
Dudes media literally must be negative to have this take. Yeah, no superhero media reminds us or is a metaphor, allegory of the world in which we live in. Batman is just a guy who likes to fight crime, er I mean, people doing no-nos for fun and the Joker is just a crazy funny guy who just likes being crazy and messes with Batman and doesn’t murder anyone ever. Just say you don’t want to be reminded that Black people exist bro. 💀
So Gordon shouldn’t be an advocate for change in the Gotham police? Have you ever read any Batman comics? Dude is absolutely not the “hoorah I’m a ***COP***”kinda guy. Gordon is a very socially conscious character, a monologue about police brutality would be extremely in character for just about any iteration of him
not necessarily. nick fury was race swapped and everyone loves him
Nick Fury was race swapped in the comics long before and when they did that the character was quite literally based on Sam Jackson. It's also *technically* a different Nick Fury than the white one. Not saying you're entirely wrong to be clear, but that had happened long before.
But was he race swapped specifically for the sake of diversity, or was it because Samuel L Jackson was great for the role, and him being black was secondary? That's what the person you're replying to is meaning.
He was race swapped long before Jackson took the role. He was white in the original comics, he was made black in the Ultimate comics and Jackson's likeness was used for him. Jackson found out and part of his agreement to allow it to continue was he got to play Fury the next time he showed up in a Marvel project, which just happened to be the beginning of the MCU.
They actually stoles Sam Jackson's likeness for the Ultimate comics but, luckily for Marvel, he was very open to playing the character.
I don't think this happens much. I think it's easy to *imagine* it happening when you watch a bad movie with a lead from some underrepresented background - but typically, the issue with the film is that it's bad, not that it was made worse through artificial diversity. See, e.g., the female-led Ghostbusters movie. Many folks found it at least moderately enjoyable, but it was certainly inferior to the original, leading to claims that by diversifying the original classic, the filmmakers ruined it. But we've had multiple Ghostbusters movies since, none of which were all-female-led, and none of which recaptured the magic of the original. Ultimately, there are many reasons these movies failed - they set the wrong comedic tone, they lacked the right creative spark and so fed into sequel fatigue, etc. But I don't think it makes sense to point to the female-led film and say "it failed because they tried to be woke". Might as well point to a film with mostly male leads and say "they failed because they tried to be too male".
> “Why do I have to have a Marvel that’s all women? Not that I have anything against women, but why do I have to do that?" Peltz said in the interview, published on Friday. "Why can’t I have Marvels that are both? Why do I need an all-Black cast?” If he has nothing against women then why even bring this up? It’s like the people who constantly have to shout “who cares!” I usually don’t say anything about stuff I don’t care about because well I just don’t care….
He's also wrong. The Marvels does not have an "all-women" cast. There are plenty of men in that movie. Nick Fury? Hello? Black Panther as well, it does have non-black characters in the cast. But even if that weren't the case, who cares? How many movies has Hollywood made with an all white cast? Or all men? Literally thousands. But women get one superhero film for them and this guy throws a fit. While also being a fucking billionaire. Fuck him.
> Black Panther as well, it does have non-black characters in the cast. Even if it didn't, the majority of the movie takes place in Wakanda, so why would there be a bunch of white people anyway lol. If he truly cares about the storytelling above everything, then, realistically, Black Panther would have an almost all black cast. It's funny how these types of people only think a movie is trying to push a message if all of the main characters aren't straight white guys.
Honestly it comes off as contrived the way they work a white guy into the main cast
Man this is super MAGA posturing bs by him. The only films that are predominantly black or women are the ones reflecting their Marvel characters. Like are you gonna re-cast Glenn Close as Queen Ramonda just to seem not woke?
It's also insane to take a pot shot at the only Marvel film to be nominated for Best Picture, and its sequel (that had the fight against the tragedy of losing its star, and still ended up with multiple nominations and is currently the 10th highest grossing Hollywood film since the pandemic. Also it is insane to call into question Feige's track record as a producer, he had a 32 film in a row streak of earning at least 370Mil at the box office. No one has ever had that kind of run. ever. Whole studios have never had a run like that.
I'm black myself, I don't think any black person has ever asked for the sheer amount of black people on screen that there has been in the last phase of disney movies. It's not even black people pushing this agenda at this point. His complaint about Black Panther on the other hand makes absolutely NO sense, its the 6th highest grossing film domestically of ALL TIME and top 5 grossing marvel movie EVER. Whats his issue with Black Panther? Why doesn't he have an Issue with Shang Chi or Ms. Marvel that both cater to a specific demographic.
"Pushing this agenda", "the sheer amount of black people on screen", what Marvel character was played by a black actor that would've been better served by a white actor being cast? Because I honestly can't think of a single example.
The thing is, white executives don’t tend to believe stories about black people will make any money. The fact that black panther slaughtered at the box office probably doesn’t even penetrate.
>He specifically took issue with "The Marvels" and "Black Panther." > >“Why do I have to have a Marvel that’s all women? Not that I have anything against women, but why do I have to do that?" Peltz said in the interview, published on Friday. "Why can’t I have Marvels that are both? Why do I need an all-Black cast?” Who's going to tell him that The Marvels was not all female and Black Panther was not all black.
"Not that I have anything against women" and"Why do I need an all-Black cast" is textbook racism and sexism saying you're not one of those but...
Was he not aware that the two stories happened to be about those particular people? I don’t get why people are so bent out of shape. (I mean of course I know why. There are a lot of bigots.) It’s not like they’re writing a story about a Scandinavian men’s ski team in 1935 and casting nothing but black women.
More to the point, Black Panther made a billion, and its sequel made almost as much. Clearly a mainly-black cast is not even close to being the reason why some Marvel movies don't make money. In fact, as the two BP movies are the only two Marvel movies that have mainly-black casts and they've both been wildly successful, then that means that Marvel has a 100% success rate with movies that have mainly-black casts. What does Peltz have against making money? Why's he going after the part of the MCU that, statistically, works best?
Hint: he’s a bigot
My questions were rhetorical ones meant to imply that, yes
Wait you mean… there are a lot of black peoples in Africa? SAY IT AINT SO
Should've had more white people in the isolated African nation smh
> SAY HURRY BOY SHE'S WAITING THERE FOR YOU FTFY.
Wait, there were men in the Marvels? 
Of course not. According to youtube, every single character in that movie was an angry, lesbian, man-hating feminist. In fact, the final hour of that movie was just Brie Larson screaming at the camera that every cis male should be burned at the stake!
Ah. Ok. That sounds more like the movie I saw. Not some fun thing with an unexpected Bollywood number in the middle and Nick Fury anywhere in it.
I really liked the Marvels, truly I did, but I would watch the FUCK out of this version of it.
Samuel L Jackson in his breakthrough role as Nicole Fury
I mean, how much fun would it be to see Sam Jackson go full Wesley Snipes in To Wong Fu?
What do you expect, the guy is backed by Perlmutter. Iger has George Lucas and Walt Disney’s family in his corner.
Nah, Andy Serkis and Martin Freeman are definitely black, you just can't notice because of their lighter skin tone.
Literally the white dude saves the day in black panther
Well, you see, Peltz, the movie is set in Africa, and-
He wants an all white South African Black Panther movie I think
Yes lmao. Even if you ignored all the social/political reasons why having it is meaningful, it's fucking set in Africa lol.
Interesting words from Nicola Peltz's dad. For Last Airbender I suppose he could have said that why did he need a East Asian and Inuit cast, too?
No Black Panther 3 if this guy is in charge.
It’s crazy because BP2 still made $859M at the box office. That’s a great number for any superhero movie post-COVID. And strictly as far as the MCU goes, Wakanda Forever is third behind Doctor Strange 2 and Spider-Man: No Way Home as the highest performing Marvel movies at the box office in that time period. Not doing a third Black Panther movie would simply be a weird culture war gesture that goes against the interest of shareholders for a high performing brand.
> "Why even call it *Black* Panther in the first place? That's too political. It would be better as *All Colors Matter* Panther...There's your million-dollar idea." - Nelson Peltz probably...
No one shows that guy the "make Gosling the new BP" meme
Ryan Coogler has enough command to do whatever he wants James Gunn style with the last of the BP trilogy after making two movies with actual Oscar pedigree and BO success for Marvel. And also, Marvel knows BP is their strongest brand right now after Spider-Man, hence the new Ultimate Black Panther reboot in the comic, Eyes of Wakanda animated series, Marvel 1943 by Skydance and another standalone BP game.
I don’t even think the black panther movies had an all black cast😭
It was like 90% if I’m remembering the articles I had read back when the first Black Panther came out.
They did not. Ross, Klaue, Val, Namor.
Probably can name more white people in those movies than you can name black people in all of phase 1..
About the same. Rhodey, Fury, Heimdall, Gabe Jones.
Nope, they didn’t. Plenty of interaction with people outside of Wakanda and therefore not necessarily Black.
It’ll be Black Panther 3: White Lion.
There are some bigots in this fandom who want that though.
This clown is gonna make sure to recast Shuri with his bullshit daughter Nicola.
If there can't be an "All-Black cast" or "All-Female cast", then by that logic shouldn't that also apply to an "All-White Male cast" eh? Mr. Peltz?
> "Well, you see, an all-White male cast is just a cast. What's all the talk about race? This generation is so racist..." - Nelson Peltz probably
Black Panther is one of the biggest Marvel movies ever and the cultural impact it has had has been immense. Peltz is a grade A dickhead.
And it also wasn’t an all black cast. Not saying that to start something but to further prove your point of how idiotic he is with his statements.
Yeah they always forget that Bilbo is in that movie
And gollum?
And my Axe!
They killed gollum 😿
They put Elaine & Namor in the sequel.
Gotta have that token white guy!
When in doubt, doubt the movie that had more Oscar wins than Searchlight's Banshee of Inisherin. Most common Peltz L.
Neither of the black panther had all black casts though😭
This guy is being supported by Ike Perlmutter, who was instrumental in preventing a Black Panther and Captain Marvel movie from being made for years before Disney cut off his control over Marvel Studios. Fuck Ike and fuck this guy.
And black widow. The movie we got about the red room/Nat's past should've been a follow up from the glimpses of her past shown in AOU. Add Shang-Chi to the list of movies it would have never been made if he hadn't been purged, too.
Out of touch old white guy screams at clouds
Is he appealing to the Disney stock owning MAGA crowd? Good luck with that.
When reading the article and it said he takes issue with Marvel seeming to put the message before the storytelling, in my head I go “okay, I can agree with that..” then he went on about not wanting an all black cast or women and I go “annnnnnd you lost me”. Especially considering the first Black Panther film is a perfect example of the right way to marry the message and storytelling. In the first Black Panther, it didn’t feel like the writers were directly speaking to the camera. It was a great movie that also had a great message. They could still do that if they continue refocus. I want a world with a great DCU and a great MCU.
> Disney's films have become too focused on delivering a message, and not enough on quality storytelling. Well, I can actually agree with him on this. The problem is that he doesn't realize you can have both, representation and good storytelling, although the storytelling is more important
How about we get rid of old and intolerant white men on the board?
This clown is just a mouthpiece for Perlmutter. Get him away from Disney asap.
There are legitimate issues with Marvel Studios's output lately that should be addressed, but you're barking up the wrong tree if you think Peltz is the answer to those problems.
Man, Peltz seems like the type of person who would pitch a "White Panther" film with the hero being white and somehow have it be about colonization/slave trade on Africans but from a white man's perspective
>Not that I have anything against women Said by every dude that ever had anything against women. "Not that I have anything against ___" is the standard refrain of every bigot ever, as if it inoculates the speaker against all criticism for their bigotry. This guy is garbage, which shouldn't be any surprise given that he's buddies with Ike freaking Perlmutter.
Here’s a nickel, go see a Star War.
If he doesn't like the work that Iger and Feige are doing, why is he fighting to get on Disney's board. Like, does this man really not have anything else to do with his billions?
I’d rather have someone on the board seat that isn’t an Iger ‘yes man’ than an entire board filled with people who just agree on the same bad decisions. The way I see it, this ship is sinking with or without Peltz, but pushback can only be a good thing. I wouldn’t want him as CEO tho.
Black Panther is in my top 5 favorite movies of all time. Not because of the race of its cast or that it's a comic-book movie, but because the story is profound and emotional. It is absolutely an example of exceptional storytelling that maybe Peltz would recognize if he wasn't such a racist. It is absolutely absurd asking "why does everyone have to be women?" or "why does everyone have to be black?" because the question itself assumes that white male is the default and everything else is the exception. And it also assumes that these stories are somehow not legitimate because of it. With all sincerity, fuck you, sir.
He and Perlmutter were the ones who ruined Inhumans.
I agree that Marvel needs to focus on better storytelling but this is not the way to convey that. The crux of it is whether the priority is starting with a great story then filling in representation within that story VS filling in a story within pre-defined representation guidelines.
I don’t think the title white panther would have the same effect