DIS Shareholders and Stock Info ONLY

Price of the experience as a whole is a factor for me.

When I was a teenager I used to go to the movies with my friends all the time. All I had to pay for was me, myself and I and the gas to get my car there. We would go out to dinner beforehand. Packed theaters -- late 90's. Tickets were not crazy. I know, it was a million years ago now.

Now I have a family of five. Just priced out an evening show at the small, local theater, comes to $66.25 just for tickets. I can count on one hand the number of times I've been to the theater in the last 5 years.... saw Call of the Wild right before stuff closed in 2020, and since then we saw Ghostbusters: Afterlife and Super Mario Bros, and I think that might be it. It is expensive to take 5 people and the kids always want things like drinks or popcorn or something, on top of the candies I sneak in my purse. When we saw Super Mario I didn't even realize you were supposed to pick your seat ahead of time, seemed crazy.
 
Sound of Freedom. 100% passed on that because of the people involved in front of and behind the camera. I knew I wouldn't like it and refused to give them money...I was called some really not nice names by some proponents of the movie when it came up in pure movie message boards.

That's actually a bit of a different situation that I was talking about. It's pretty fair to make assessments like that.
 
For us, the movie has to be worth the effort and extra cost for things like refreshments, or we have to be in the mood to go to it. We got a membership at our local Alamo Drafthouse where we pay an upfront monthly fee and can go once a day if we wanted. We used it a lot in July, very little in August, only once in September but that's due to both not being a lot of movies and college football taking up my Saturdays. Watched the Taylor Swift concert film with DD16 and DD13 & DD16 saw Five Nights at Freddy's. We're planning a lot this month with Wish, Hunger Games (sitting that one out), The Marvels. Wife and I would like to see Killers of the Flower Moon but that's a huge time investment and frankly, just content that will depress us in a time where we just don't want or need that mentally. There's a lot of good content out there and upcoming but there's also the wonderful pull of having a lot of great content on our Apple TV and projector. The pandemic really made it harder to put in the effort to go to the theater. I'm not sure how the industry overcomes that, especially with the dearth of content that's upcoming due to the strikes. It's about to hit a point of disaster.
 
For all your worry about not being preached at, you saw Avatar, which is about the "preachiest" movie I can think of. Actually, though, I am trying to think of a recent movie that preached at me - aside from Avatar - and I really can't.
You ever considered that if you don’t feel preached to, then you likely agree with the views being presented by modern Hollywood?
 
You ever considered that if you don’t feel preached to, then you likely agree with the views being presented by modern Hollywood?

Well, I 100% agree with the message of Avatar, and yet I recognize that they lay it on pretty thick in the preachiness department.
 
I understand that Avatar was “preachy”, but I also understand it had elements I loved. It was stunning visually, and a sequel to a great movie and a great ride at Disney. It also had a really nice “family” theme which I personally liked.

I mean Avatar is just live action Fern Gully anyway, but it is a wonderful visual spectacle that I found very entertaining.

I guess if the story / visuals/ sound is good enough, I can overlook some preaching.
 
I understand that Avatar was “preachy”, but I also understand it had elements I loved. It was stunning visually, and a sequel to a great movie and a great ride at Disney. It also had a really nice “family” theme which I personally liked.

I mean Avatar is just live action Fern Gully anyway, but it is a wonderful visual spectacle that I found very entertaining.

I guess if the story / visuals/ sound is good enough, I can overlook some preaching.
I guess the question is, what movie has been preachy? I have not watched every movie but I have not watched a movie and thought, wow that movie really was hitting my in the head with a message they wanted to send. At least, not since Avatar 2.

Edit to add: I recently played and finished Spider Man 2 and will say that some parts in that story did feel a bit preachy and unnecessary but it was a good game and story and could be over looked.
 
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/b...tock-rating-downgrade-asset-sales-1235637590/

Paramount Analyst Cuts Stock Rating From ‘Buy’ to ‘Underperform’ Due to Lack of Asset Sales

Bank of America expert Jessica Reif Ehrlich, in her report "Hard to buy if not for sale," slashed her price target on the shares from $32 to $9.

by Georg Szalai
November 6, 2023 6:47am PST

Bank of America analyst Jessica Reif Ehrlich has been bullish on the stock of Paramount Global, driven by her belief that the entertainment giant could fetch attractive price tags for key assets. But on Monday, she cut her stock rating on the Hollywood company all the way from “buy” to “underperform,” while decimating her price target on the shares from $32 to $9 in a report entitled “Hard to buy if not for sale.”

Paramount shares declined in early Monday trading despite gains in the broader market, hitting $13.22, down 3.9 percent, at 9:35 a.m. ET. For the year, the stock is down more than 20 percent.

“Our prior bullish thesis and valuation methodology was predicated on Paramount’s inherent asset value in a potential sale,” Reif Ehrlich explained in her report. “Despite receiving credible bids for several different assets (e.g. Showtime and BET), it does not appear any significant asset sales are on the horizon. Given the secular challenges in the traditional media ecosystem, we were surprised to see Paramount walk away from these potential buyers for various assets.”

The analyst added this warning: “Our concern is the longer it takes to execute potential asset sales, the less value they could ultimately garner.”

In her earnings preview report, the Wall Street veteran had emphasized: “Paramount has a unique collection of assets that would generate significant interest if put up for sale.”

Reif Ehrlich’s downgrade came after Paramount, led by CEO Bob Bakish, reported better-than-expected third-quarter earnings and a narrowed streaming loss last week. About her new price target of $9, she highlighted that it was seven times her 2024 estimates for Paramount’s operating income before depreciation and amortization (OIBDA), “which represents a modest premium to the current trading levels of both Warner Bros. Discovery/Fox and a discount to Disney.”
 
I guess the question is, what movie has been preachy? I have not watched every movie but I have not watched a movie and thought, wow that movie really was hitting my in the head with a message they wanted to send. At least, not since Avatar 2.

Edit to add: I recently played and finished Spider Man 2 and will say that some parts in that story did feel a bit preachy and unnecessary but it was a good game and story and could be over looked.

That's my point exactly. Recent Disney movies and Marvel movies etc. have not actually been "preachy" at all. People are just overly sensitive toward certain topics. I can usually recognize it whether I agree with it or not and I don't hardly see it in mainstream movies. I do in other forms of entertainment - again, whetehr I agree with it or not. Many of the movies accused of being such though simply aren't "preachy."
 
For more context on the industry. Domestic movie tickets sold peaked in 2002. 2023 is on track to sell 43% less tickets than 2002. Covid plus streaming has really been an inflection point downward.

Theatres are one of the rare industries that did not have a post-Covid boom.
 
That's actually a bit of a different situation that I was talking about. It's pretty fair to make assessments like that.
So just curious as to why it is “fair” to make an assessment to not attend this movie, but not fair for me to not like and attend something I find off putting? Could it possibly be that we have different causes we find off putting?
 
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/b...tock-rating-downgrade-asset-sales-1235637590/

Paramount Analyst Cuts Stock Rating From ‘Buy’ to ‘Underperform’ Due to Lack of Asset Sales

Bank of America expert Jessica Reif Ehrlich, in her report "Hard to buy if not for sale," slashed her price target on the shares from $32 to $9.

by Georg Szalai
November 6, 2023 6:47am PST

Bank of America analyst Jessica Reif Ehrlich has been bullish on the stock of Paramount Global, driven by her belief that the entertainment giant could fetch attractive price tags for key assets. But on Monday, she cut her stock rating on the Hollywood company all the way from “buy” to “underperform,” while decimating her price target on the shares from $32 to $9 in a report entitled “Hard to buy if not for sale.”

Paramount shares declined in early Monday trading despite gains in the broader market, hitting $13.22, down 3.9 percent, at 9:35 a.m. ET. For the year, the stock is down more than 20 percent.

“Our prior bullish thesis and valuation methodology was predicated on Paramount’s inherent asset value in a potential sale,” Reif Ehrlich explained in her report. “Despite receiving credible bids for several different assets (e.g. Showtime and BET), it does not appear any significant asset sales are on the horizon. Given the secular challenges in the traditional media ecosystem, we were surprised to see Paramount walk away from these potential buyers for various assets.”

The analyst added this warning: “Our concern is the longer it takes to execute potential asset sales, the less value they could ultimately garner.”

In her earnings preview report, the Wall Street veteran had emphasized: “Paramount has a unique collection of assets that would generate significant interest if put up for sale.”

Reif Ehrlich’s downgrade came after Paramount, led by CEO Bob Bakish, reported better-than-expected third-quarter earnings and a narrowed streaming loss last week. About her new price target of $9, she highlighted that it was seven times her 2024 estimates for Paramount’s operating income before depreciation and amortization (OIBDA), “which represents a modest premium to the current trading levels of both Warner Bros. Discovery/Fox and a discount to Disney.”
The last 4 Quarters for Paramount:
EBITDA
TV Media (CBS, cable channels and sports): $4.9B
Direct to Consumer: -$1.7B
Filmed Entertainment: -$56m

I just feel like it is inevitable that they will be bought by someone.
 
https://www.fool.com/investing/2023/11/06/3-ways-disney-stock-could-move-higher-this-week/

3 Ways Disney Stock Could Move Higher This Week
By Rick Munarriz – Nov 6, 2023 at 11:15AM CST

Key Points
  • Disney reports quarterly results on Wednesday. The bottom line will be the big story.
  • The return of Disney's dividend could materialize this week. The media giant announced it would be coming back before the end of the calendar year.
  • Disney's latest film from the Marvel team has hit a few speed bumps, but facing low expectations isn't a bad thing as it hits theaters on Thursday afteroon.

    Earnings, dividends, and Captain Marvel will have shares of the media giant on the move this week.
The market just had its best week in a long time, and Walt Disney (DIS -0.38%) didn't sit out the buoyancy. Shares of the media giant rose 7.2% last week, better than the general market's 5.9% jump. This new trading week could be even better.

There's a lot going on at Disney in the coming days. The stock began last week near the nine-year low it hit in early October. If it successfully navigates through earnings season, gets back on track at the corner multiplex, and does something that it hasn't done in four years, it could be a winning week for Disney investors.

1. Earning its way back

Disney reports financial results for the fiscal fourth quarter on Wednesday afternoon. Expectations are mixed. Analysts are targeting $20.13 billion in revenue, essentially where it was for the final frame of fiscal 2022 a year ago. It doesn't mean that the House of Mouse is simply walking in place.

Some segments will be on the rise. Revenue at Disney+ and its other digital streaming services should continue to move higher with prices on the rise over the past year. Its theme parks segment will also deliver top-line growth, particularly internationally as those parks get back to business. It should be enough to overcome flat results at Disney World, as its largest Central Florida rival did post a decline in business earlier this earnings season.

There will also be headwinds holding back revenue growth. Its linear networks and studio entertainment segments are likely still driving in reverse. There are so many moving parts to Disney that it's hard to hit on all cylinders at the same time.

The bigger story will be the bottom line. Analysts see Disney earnings more than doubling to $0.68 a share. It posted a profit of $0.30 a share a year earlier. Estimates have been drifting lower in recent weeks, but Disney is executing on its efforts to trim more than $5.5 billion in annual costs by the end of next year. It has topped Wall Street income forecasts in two of its last three reports.

2. Bringing back the dividend

Disney announced earlier this year that it would like to resume its cash distributions to shareholders before the end of this calendar year. It reiterated that desire back in August. Disney hasn't issued a semi-annual dividend since late 2019, just before the pandemic interrupted most of its operations.

Investors know they won't get much. Disney has never been a high-yielding investment. After going through layoffs earlier this year in its expenses-slashing efforts, cutting its shareholders a fat dividend check isn't a good look. However, even a modest declaration will reward investors for sticking around. It may even win back some institutional investors with income requirements in their positions.

Announcing the dividend this week makes sense, paired with the final quarterly earnings release of the 2023 calendar year. It's not the only thing that the media stock bellwether can work on, so it lines up with this week's report. Might Disney announce an asset sale, a cease fire on its latest proxy battle, or an industrywide resolution of the last remaining strike that has halted Hollywood productions?

All three things aren't entirely in Disney's control, but if it's able to make progress on any front to deliver good news for its shareholders there is no better incentive than a widely followed financial update and the subsequent earnings call to show off.

3. Putting the motion back in pictures

Disney is no longer an automatic hit factory when its puts out a big-budget theatrical release. Even its deep bench of Marvel characters has fallen flat from time to time. It will get another swing when The Marvels hits the multiplex over the weekend.

The new film starring Brie Larson as Captain Marvel officially opens on Friday, but theater chains will be offering early screenings on Thursday. In short, investors will know if it's off to an encouraging start before the end of the trading week. The prognosis right now isn't promising. There were reports of lengthy reshoots to smooth out the storyline and improve the film's chances to succeed.

With stateside exhibitors just experiencing their second worst weekend of box office receipts of 2023, it's not just Disney that can use a hit. Expectations are low, and that can only help Disney if fans show up in healthy numbers on Thursday to be the first to marvel at The Marvels.
 
So just curious as to why it is “fair” to make an assessment to not attend this movie, but not fair for me to not like and attend something I find off putting? Could it possibly be that we have different causes we find off putting?

What I mean is it's fair to consider the people involved in a movie and choose not to see it. I do so with Tom Cruise. They weren't actually making a statement about the movie itself, i.e. it being "preachy" or anything. They said they didn't even see it. What I'm talking about is assessing a movie as being "preachy" even when it isn't. Like, what Disney produced movie has actually been preachy?

Anyway, preachiness or lack therof doesn't affect the stock price so....
 
The last 4 Quarters for Paramount:
EBITDA
TV Media (CBS, cable channels and sports): $4.9B
Direct to Consumer: -$1.7B
Filmed Entertainment: -$56m

I just feel like it is inevitable that they will be bought by someone.
Could be, but I suspect Shari Redstone will hold out as long as she can. The egos in play here are as outsized as anywhere on Planet Earth. As hard as she fought to get control of everything, I just don't see her rolling over for mere money.

Unless, of course, the offer has enough zeros and commas in it...
 
https://nypost.com/2023/11/06/busin...n-as-cfo-bolstering-bob-igers-turnaround-bid/

With Johnston, 61, it gets an executive with solid top level experience and who has been credited with boosting PepsiCo’s revenue to about $86 billion last year from $58 billion in 2010.

Johnston had also helped guide the Doritos maker through its bitter battle with activist investor Nelson Peltz’s Trian Fund Management.


Trian is reportedly planning a new board challenge at Disney, months after the company addressed the hedge fund’s criticism by outlining a plan to reduce more than $5 billion in costs that included 7,000 job cuts.
 
Some history.

https://archive.nytimes.com/dealboo...-nelson-peltz-after-2-years-of-locking-horns/

PepsiCo Reaches Truce With Nelson Peltz After 2 Years of Locking Horns
By Michael J. de la Merced - January 16, 2015 4:20 pm

Nearly two years of public saber-rattling between PepsiCo and the billionaire investor Nelson Peltz appeared to end on Friday, as the two announced a truce of sorts.

PepsiCo, the food and beverage giant, said that it would add William R. Johnson, the former chief executive of H. J. Heinz, to its board. Mr. Johnson, who will serve as an independent director, is also an adviser to Mr. Peltz’s investment firm, Trian Fund Management.

The settlement will most likely end a long-running campaign by Mr. Peltz and his team to break up PepsiCo, who have asserted that investors would benefit by spinning off the company’s beverages business from its better-performing snacks unit.

The announcement comes on the heels of a very different — and decidedly more combative — situation at the chemical maker DuPont, where Trian has begun a battle to win four seats on the board.

It is the latest settlement by Trian, whose success as a “constructive” activist investor willing to work behind the scenes with companies have led to the firm’s managing about $11 billion with a return of about 55 percent over the last two years, net of fees.

PepsiCo seemed poised to become the next target of a proxy challenge by Mr. Peltz, who over the last decade has taken that aggressive activist step only twice: at Heinz and DuPont. Trian first unveiled its campaign to break up PepsiCo in the summer of 2013, following a playbook that the investment firm has previously deployed at the likes of Cadbury Schweppes, which broke up into Cadbury and the Dr Pepper Snapple Group.

At PepsiCo, Mr. Peltz and his team said that splitting up the two businesses would free them up to pursue different management strategies. The snacks division, which includes Frito-Lay, would become a public company with a fast-growing stock price, while the beverages business — weighed down by a drop in soda sales — could pay out handsome dividends.

Trian, which owns a stake of roughly 1 percent, said that it had met with 100 of its fellow shareholders, winning the public support of the big California public pension fund known as Calstrs.

But PepsiCo has staunchly defended its current business model after conducting what it called “an exhaustive review” of strategic alternatives. Helping the food company is its performance. The company’s third-quarter profit surpassed analysts’ expectations, after management cut costs and raised prices to bolster the bottom line.

And shares in PepsiCo have risen nearly 17 percent over the last 12 months, handily outpacing the Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index. Mr. Peltz has said privately, however, that his firm’s agitation has contributed to that rise.

Still, the announcement on Friday suggests that Trian and Indra Nooyi, PepsiCo’s chairwoman and chief executive, had reached some kind of détente that will prevent a split of the company — at least for now.

“We have had constructive discussions with Trian for nearly two years,” Ms. Nooyi said in a statement. “They have provided valuable input to many aspects of our business, and the recommendation of Bill as an independent director to the board.”

Mr. Peltz also took the opportunity to extend an olive branch.

“We support Indra’s commitment to operational excellence, which has resulted in improved performance of the company. We are confident that Bill will be a strong and complementary addition to the PepsiCo board,” he said in a statement.

As part of the deal, Mr. Johnson will become PepsiCo’s 14th board member on March 23. He will then be included with other nominees at the company’s annual shareholder meeting later this year.

The appointment of Mr. Johnson also highlights a new initiative by Trian to emphasize its focus on improving operations at companies in which it invests. Mr. Johnson is one of three inaugural members of what the firm calls Trian Advisory Partners, alongside Dennis M. Kass, the former chairman of Legg Mason, and Dennis Reilley, the chairman of Marathon Oil and a former senior executive at DuPont.

The newly formed group is meant to help the firm identify potential new investments and to provide advice for management teams. And as at PepsiCo, they can also serve as directors on those companies’ boards.

Trian executives said that they had come to know the three men through investments in companies where the executives had worked. In some ways, the addition of Mr. Johnson — who led Heinz during the sometimes bruising battle with Mr. Peltz — is a surprise. During the proxy fight, Mr. Johnson contended that if the financier succeeded, “you’re going to have a destabilizing situation.”

But Mr. Peltz has since described becoming close to his onetime foe, with Mr. Johnson spending time at Trian’s offices in Midtown Manhattan.

Similarly, Trian executives did not know Mr. Kass or Mr. Reilley until becoming involved in their companies. Both men have also spent significant time with the activist firm, including regularly meeting with senior executives.

Trian is expected to announce more additions to the advisory board in the coming months.

“We have served on boards with our new advisory partners in recent years and appreciate the independent thinking and industry knowledge they bring to board and management collaborations,” Edward P. Garden, a Trian co-founder and its chief investment officer, said in a statement. “We are excited to formalize their roles with Trian and expect they will leverage the ongoing work of our 17 investment professionals.”
 
For some folks, the mere presence of a female protagonist in, say, a Star Wars film is "preachy".
And for some folks if you say you don’t like how Rey was written and how Luke was treated you are called nasty names on here. Even when you like other other female protagonist in other roles.

Love how Katniss Everdeen is written, but hate how Rey was written……..”see, I knew you were a $&@#¥£€!?=“
 
Last edited:
And for some folks if you say you don’t like how Rey was written and how Luke was treated you are called nasty names on here. Even when you like other other female protagonist in other roles.

Love how Katnis Everdeen is written, but hate how Rey was written……..”see I knew you were a $&@#¥£€!?=“

We've been over it many, many times - it's fine to dislike how Rey was written, however the oft cited reasons also apply to many other characters, namely the most analagous Luke and Anakin. So, it would totally be fair to not like how any of those characters were written because they are overpowered or whatever. When you only dislike one of them though, and that one has a single differentiating feature, well, people will conclude as to why. And look, maybe that doesn't apply to you personally - I honestly don't think it does - but when you quote the sources that make the same complaints about the character, and we know why they feel that way - because they don't make it about the moviem, they make it about the character - then it certainly can seem that way.

And despite any misgivings about the plot or the character, do you really see those movies, or any Marvel movies, or any Disney movies released recently as "preachy"? I cant think of a single one that is, and yet so many people complain about that. Why is the real question.
 

GET A DISNEY VACATION QUOTE

Dreams Unlimited Travel is committed to providing you with the very best vacation planning experience possible. Our Vacation Planners are experts and will share their honest advice to help you have a magical vacation.

Let us help you with your next Disney Vacation!











facebook twitter
Top