Corporations: the good, the bad, and the ugly

BigRedBuster said:
'merican exceptionalism.  When a company speaks out about policy and it creates faux outrage from neo nazis and a governor with really thin skin.
Click to expand...
I honestly think Disney has tanked because ESPN is crashing and burning, Marvel and Star Wars have essentially been milked dry, along with companies like ABC becoming irrelevant with the uptick of streaming.

I don't claim to be an entertainment guru at all!  But is there any relationship between the sharp drop in the past 48 hours being related to the release of "Ashoka"?  I enjoyed the first two episodes, but I also like "Rebels".  I can see if people didn't watch that, they would be pretty meh on the new series.

The rest of the steady drop kind of coincides with ESPN's issues and the last Marvels and SW "hits".

 
Last edited by a moderator:
funhusker said:
I honestly think Disney has tanked because ESPN is crashing and burning, Marvel and Star Wars have essentially been milked dry, along with companies like ABC becoming irrelevant with the uptick of streaming.

I don't claim to be an entertainment guru at all!  But is there any relationship between the sharp drop in the past 48 hours being related to the release of "Ashoka"?  I enjoyed the first two episodes, but I also like "Rebels".  I can see if people didn't watch that, they would be pretty meh on the new series.

The rest of the steady drop kind of coincides with ESPN's issues and the last Marvels and SW "hits".
Click to expand...
I think you’ve hit on a few things I’ve also believed.   The Movie Studio Disney business has not been good for them.   The writing and directing doesnt seem to mesh with what the consumer is wanting.  There is a big disconnect.  The parks business is slowing from the economy and expense of everything and the streaming has definitely been a money drain.   Streaming was supposed to be the darling based on investor expectations when Disneyplus first came out.   
 

 
funhusker said:
I honestly think Disney has tanked because ESPN is crashing and burning, Marvel and Star Wars have essentially been milked dry, along with companies like ABC becoming irrelevant with the uptick of streaming.

I don't claim to be an entertainment guru at all!  But is there any relationship between the sharp drop in the past 48 hours being related to the release of "Ashoka"?  I enjoyed the first two episodes, but I also like "Rebels".  I can see if people didn't watch that, they would be pretty meh on the new series.

The rest of the steady drop kind of coincides with ESPN's issues and the last Marvels and SW "hits".
Click to expand...
Outside of Marvel and some Star Wars content Disney has been awful for years. As you said they've basically milked those two dry, and their live action remakes have been... Meh. Lion King was kind of weird to watch to be honest. ESPN has been garbage for a decade, and they continue to slide even further, their best talent is on Fox. There's almost no reason to get Disney+, even when bundled, unless you have little kids.

 
ZRod said:
Outside of Marvel and some Star Wars content Disney has been awful for years. As you said they've basically milked those two dry, and their live action remakes have been... Meh. Lion King was kind of weird to watch to be honest. ESPN has been garbage for a decade, and they continue to slide even further, their best talent is on Fox. There's almost no reason to get Disney+, even when bundled, unless you have little kids.
Click to expand...
https://www.fool.com/investing/2023/08/21/5-reasons-disney-stock-could-be-a-bargain-right-no/

https://www.fool.com/investing/2023/06/05/this-1-chart-sums-up-whats-wrong-with-disney-stock/

 
Disney isn’t the only company  that tries have the get out jail free cards inserted into their terms of service and it seems that lately they are more and more egregious.   I hope Disney loses this one to help set a better precedent going forward that this BS is no bueno 


 
Archy1221 said:
Disney isn’t the only company  that tries have the get out jail free cards inserted into their terms of service and it seems that lately they are more and more egregious.   I hope Disney loses this one to help set a better precedent going forward that this BS is no bueno 
Click to expand...
That one is really egregious. I hope that this gets slapped down with a bag of bricks. Your massive conglomeration doesn’t get umbrella protection just because people want to use one small portion of your products that aren’t at all what you agreed to within that disclosure. 

 
deedsker said:
That one is really egregious. I hope that this gets slapped down with a bag of bricks. Your massive conglomeration doesn’t get umbrella protection just because people want to use one small portion of your products that aren’t at all what you agreed to within that disclosure. 
Click to expand...




OK but what if the thing you said you agreed to to get access to that one small portion had a part that said "I solemnly swear and give up my right to sue your company for anything ever"?

 
Lorewarn said:
OK but what if the thing you said you agreed to to get access to that one small portion had a part that said "I solemnly swear and give up my right to sue your company for anything ever"?
Click to expand...




It's still a bunch of bulls#!t and should not be something they're allowed to have there, anymore than the fine print should say they're allowed to murder their customers. Surely there are limits to what can be put into agreements like this.

“A valid agreement to arbitrate does not exist because the arbitration clauses upon which [Walt Disney Parks and Resorts] rely are unconscionable,” the filing said.

Unconscionability (sometimes known as unconscionable dealing/conduct in Australia) is a doctrine in contract law that describes terms that are so extremely unjust, or overwhelmingly one-sided in favor of the party who has the superior bargaining power, that they are contrary to good conscience. Typically, an unconscionable contract is held to be unenforceable because no reasonable or informed person would otherwise agree to it. The perpetrator of the conduct is not allowed to benefit, because the consideration offered is lacking, or is so obviously inadequate, that to enforce the contract would be unfair to the party seeking to escape the contract.
Click to expand...




I think the most ridiculous part (among many others) is this:
 

Disney said the binding arbitration clause for the tickets applies to anyone he bought tickets for, according to the response.
Click to expand...


So my friend invites me to Disney world and I have no way of knowing I could get killed there and they suffer no consequences? This is asinine. And I'm guessing nobody who signed up for Disney Plus noticed this. This was a really s#!tty PR move by Disney. If they were smart they would have at least waited to use it on a case worth a lot more $. I believe Disney is going to lose millions of $ because they were trying to save $ here.

It's EXTREMELY trivial to argue that no reasonably informed person would agree to this in the DisneyPlus contract if they had known this was a possibility.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
A side note on this Disney thing. It is my understanding that you cannot waive liability for negligent actions. So, in my reasoning, if Disney was negligent in this death, the harmed party agreeing to some unrelated (or even related) agreement would not allow Disney out of a wrongful death suit. I see absolutely no reason the Disney+ arbitration clause can or would apply at all here.

I’m not a lawyer but I have stayed at a Holliday Inn Express. 

 
Back
Top