Willow - Official Teaser Trailer

[Ruin Explorer]

The Showrunner is right to be pissed, it sounds like its another Disney scam to not pay residuals.

That's exactly what it is.

David Zaslav normalized this kind of incredibly crappy behaviour by making it a major part of his demented changes to HBO, where he's pivoting a high-quality fiction TV brand to trash-tier reality TV. He's a real piece of work.

Anyway, before he did that, this was seen as beyond the pale, for the most part, it happened, but usually only to very obscure shows. Now he's done it, and didn't suffer for it, Disney and others are seeing it as an opportunity. The costs they're cutting aren't particularly large, but they do add up. I think in the longer-term it's going to backfire quite badly for them, but in the short term I'm sure it'll please shareholders, who are the only people who really matter to companies like this.

 

[GreyLord]

The costs they're cutting aren't particularly large, but they do add up. I think in the longer-term it's going to backfire quite badly for them, but in the short term I'm sure it'll please shareholders, who are the only people who really matter to companies like this.

While I feel you are correct for certain types of shareholders (those corps that run retirement accounts, banking stocks, pure investment funds, etc), which compose a massive amount of the holders and representatives today, I think this doesn't represent the individual shareholders.

By these I mean individuals that hold sizeable amounts of stock in companies (and many times DO have representatives that are either on the boards of those corps, or representatives that sit or advise the boards as well). The most famous of these types today would probably be Elon Musk (regardless of how you feel about him). Sure, he has the throwaways he uses, but I think he also has stocks which he uses because they are involved with some of his passions in life (for example, I think one of those he is involved with because he loves what the company is involved with is Space-X. It's not just that he is an owner in it, he loves the ideas coming out of it). He also has involvement with other technology companies which I think are more because of his passion for those areas rather than just money (though, I admit, I also think he is a rabid stock manipulator and tries to manipulate stock for his own benefit as well).

There are those individual stockholders that are not just in it for the money, but actually are in it because they love what the company produces and want to be involved in it in some way.

I think that times when the board or the CEO makes choices that could hurt the company and it's products in the long run that this idea that it's all about the stockholders may not actually be fair to every stockholder. It's a broad generalization. I think that sometimes the stockholders (or the individual stock holders in it with their own investments rather than with the retirement and banking funds, or the investment funds) may actually not appreciate some of the actions taken.

Sometimes corporations are also taken over by hostile forces which do not have the minority holder's interests in mind and are only parasites sucking the life out of that company for their financial benefit (ala...what happened to Toys'R'Us, or what I understand happened to it).

So, though I agree that the focus of the board or CEO can be on a pure benefit for the shareholders (and many times the majority of that are the firms and groups that are in it for the money and only the money), share holders can be a more diverse group than simply those who are in it for money.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

There are those individual stockholders that are not just in it for the money, but actually are in it because they love what the company produces and want to be involved in it in some way.

Sure but this is like 0.2% of the overall shareholders in most cases, particularly with large companies like HBO/Max or Disney. Or 2% at the outside. The rest are owned by companies/institutions and people - and mainly the former - who are solely interested in how much money they're going to make on this.

So that's a long post to talk about a situation that whilst true, is completely irrelevant to the realities of the situation and, with respect, basically amounts to #notallshareholders.

Musk is a poor example because he's now so rich he's beyond any normal sane behaviour, and as you note, earlier attempts to manipulate stocks in ways that, were he less rich, might well have ended in criminal sanctions. So he was clearly out for the money on some level. Since becoming super-divorced he and getting the strange brain rot that afflicts some divorced-and-very-online men* (something even he realized in a moment of lucidity a while back) he also frequently accidentally damages his own stocks with own entirely needless behaviour and is well on the way to becoming a completely mask-off far-right anti-semite. He was pushing and promoting anti-semitic conspiracy theories in public only a couple of days ago, not for the first or even fifth time. That's not something someone whose brain works properly and who likes the companies he's involved with would do. Even if they were so irrational and paranoid as to believe such theories, they'd keep them to themselves - hell even Ford, who was a lunatic conspiracist issued a public retraction and apology for The International Jew (though his underlings had to forge his signature on it). But this is a guy so wealthy, if he lost literally 99.9% of his wealth, he'd still have hundreds of millions. Most people, even wealthy people, would be put straight into poverty if they lost 99.9% of their wealth. Thus because there are essentially no personal consequences for his actions, they're driven by whimsy and delusional beliefs. I think I preferred the stock manipulation and edgy teenager behaviour of his earlier years.

* = Something slightly similar afflicted Rowling, I note - basically self-imposed social isolation from peers (in part due to wealth) combined with being surrounded by lickspittles with extremist beliefs that she was already predisposed to believe.

 

[GreyLord]

Sure but this is like 0.2% of the overall shareholders in most cases, particularly with large companies like HBO/Max or Disney. Or 2% at the outside. The rest are owned by companies/institutions and people - and mainly the former - who are solely interested in how much money they're going to make on this.

So that's a long post to talk about a situation that whilst true, is completely irrelevant to the realities of the situation and, with respect, basically amounts to #notallshareholders.

Musk is a poor example because he's now so rich he's beyond any normal sane behaviour, and as you note, earlier attempts to manipulate stocks in ways that, were he less rich, might well have ended in criminal sanctions. So he was clearly out for the money on some level. Since becoming super-divorced he and getting the strange brain rot that afflicts some divorced-and-very-online men* (something even he realized in a moment of lucidity a while back) he also frequently accidentally damages his own stocks with own entirely needless behaviour and is well on the way to becoming a completely mask-off far-right anti-semite. He was pushing and promoting anti-semitic conspiracy theories in public only a couple of days ago, not for the first or even fifth time. That's not something someone whose brain works properly and who likes the companies he's involved with would do. Even if they were so irrational and paranoid as to believe such theories, they'd keep them to themselves - hell even Ford, who was a lunatic conspiracist issued a public retraction and apology for The International Jew (though his underlings had to forge his signature on it). But this is a guy so wealthy, if he lost literally 99.9% of his wealth, he'd still have hundreds of millions. Most people, even wealthy people, would be put straight into poverty if they lost 99.9% of their wealth. Thus because there are essentially no personal consequences for his actions, they're driven by whimsy and delusional beliefs. I think I preferred the stock manipulation and edgy teenager behaviour of his earlier years.

* = Something slightly similar afflicted Rowling, I note - basically self-imposed social isolation from peers (in part due to wealth) combined with being surrounded by lickspittles with extremist beliefs that she was already predisposed to believe.

I'm not disagreeing at all, in fact you are probably spot on with everything you say about Musk. I used him as an example of someone who has invested in their passions (as I thought he'd probably be the most well known, instant name recognition). Wozniak would be another one that is invested in their passions rather than just wanting the money.

I know the big money of the boards is what most people look at these days, but there are those that have money invested in properties for passion rather than just money (though the money is also probably nice, these types would rather the company be strong and keep going than just getting money from it). I'd imagine Disney is a company that has a lot of passionate investors (I don't know myself TBH, just with what it offers I'd think it would be one of those companies people who just love Disney want to park their money). I think Disney probably also has an out sized group of employees (compared to other corporations) that are truly there because they love Disney rather than how much it pays them. Disney seems more of a company that runs and drives passion in many aspects of it and thus would have a higher percentage of these types involved. (unlike something like HDT or other companies most wouldn't even really think of or be able to easily invest in).