While of course a different creative team will do all the difference, is also important to remember that Disney is the one that decides how much time and budget will go to these products and creative teams, and also very important, how much the movie/show will be promoted. Sometimes even the best artists out there wont be able to do a good work if the productions is messy and the times are rushed.
True, especially with how Disney is aiming for quantity in a lot of their studios. Like with the movie Wish, it certainly had the potential to be great, but it only had like 2 drafts. You can tell from the final script that they hadn't fully realized the ideas they wanted to convey, ideas that would've been much more fleshed out if they were given more time to rewrite the script. And then there's a movie like Lisa Frankenstein that had a marketing budget of around $0 and didn't make back its production budget because no one saw the movie. But I still think good artists can shine even in a messy production, and good movies are still good even if they have bad marketing. For example, A New Hope was messy as hell. George Lucas was bad at directing, the actors hated their own lines, and there were regular weather and technical issues. But the edit is what saved Star Wars from becoming a massive flop. The same thing happened in gaming with Halo 2. Halo 2 has one one of the most historically rushed development cycles of any AAA game on the market. The entire game was put together in 10 months, people got divorced over the game's development, everyone was crunching to get the game done. It was a disaster, but Halo 2 still came out and became one of the best in the Halo series. Good artists can still create good art under even the worst conditions, even if being put through those conditions should never happen to anyone. Of course, these are anecdotal and shouldn't be taken as the norm, but I still think it's important to recognize the power of good artists.
Oh tons. It changed from project to project, but Disney really only has creative control over its own movies, like how they interfered with the production of Wish. Marvel has control over Marvel and Lucasfilm has control over Lucasfilm. And even within those, the directors are given tons of creative freedom. Like with Marvel Studios, Feige really only has to interfere if the project isn't coherent with the existing MCU. But besides that, directors get to go nuts. If we were talking back in the late 2000's, then directors wouldn't have much creative control at all, but nowadays we get stuff like X-Men '97 and Werewolf by Night. And with a project like Obi-Wan Kenobi, the director was allowed to mess with canon a little to fit their creative vision. And if they didn't have creative freedom, would we really get a character like G'iah in Secret Invasion? Creative freedom is abundant in these studios. The only time you don't get much creative freedom is whenever you have to make a live action Spider-Man spin-off movie for Sony, since those are purely made for the money
Eh, that's like saying someone cared about making Madame Web. Sure, someone probably cared about making it, but the people who truly cared weren't the right people and the if right people cared it was probably for the wrong reasons.
Someone’s never dealt with S+P before. Or been ordered to do reshoots because of the opinions of random test screeners. Or had studio execs breathing down your throat forcing you to change stuff. You seem to have a really naive view of how much freedom people at these studios are given. Studios do everything they can to prevent weird personal visions because they want to reach as wide an audience as possible. R-rated movies didn’t nearly disappear of creators’ own accord. Studios, with rare exception, control every part of the movie making process. This is the kind of opinion only someone who’s never worked in the industry could have. Also, If you want to talk about someone like James Gunn being able to do good work on Marvel movies, you have to recognize that the original GotG movie was a rare risk for the studio and the lesson they took away wasn’t to let creators make their personal vision but to force every other director to make Gunn style humor. This is why Edgar Wright was kicked off of Ant Man. The only other time I can think that they took a risk like that is the Eternals and after that failed I don’t seem them trying that again. They specifically pick new directors without experience because they know that can control them. Or they pick yes men. People with ideas aren’t looked on kindly.
Someone hasn't done their research, but I have. screenrant.com/eternals-movie-director-chloe-zhao-creative-control/ screenrant.com/captain-marvel-2-nia-dacosta-creative-freedom-response/ wegotthiscovered.com/movies/thor-ragnarok-director-taika-waititi-creative-freedom/ screenrant.com/james-gunn-guardians-of-galaxy-2-marvel-creative-freedom/ bleedingcool.com/movies/ant-man-and-the-wasp-director-peyton-reed-freedom/ bleedingcool.com/movies/ryan-coogler-praises-marvel-studios/
The only reason Edgar Wright was kicked off of Ant Man was because of the old Marvel executive board. Kevin Feige was out dealing with Sony for the rights to Spider-Man, he wasn't available to go over the Ant Man script. The people who did read it was the executive board, and they were some old people who didn't see the value in creative freedom. If Kevin Feige was there, Edgar Wright likely wouldn't have been "kicked off" of Ant Man (he left of his own will because he didn't like what the board did to his script). Very soon after Ant Man, the exec board was removed from Marvel Studios and now creative freedom has a much greater value within the company.
That kinda shows the issues with how dumb story execs are, it is a tale as old as time, you try to please everyone you please no one. I heard that Stephen king only writes with his wife's opinion in mind, don't know if it's true, but it sounds sweet, and kinda smart. See the thing you aren't talking into account here, is that the creative team is just that, a creative team, and their job is to make a good and entertaining movie, which is (almost) never movies targeted towards everyone! And you were semi-right as Disney is all about pushing the ideas of movies for everyone as that's basically what they made bank on. They got so popular on kids movies and shows that almost any kids would like, but those kids are growing up and I think Disney has slightly started to catch onto that, but the thing is that they ALSO have some of their best movies as very strong takes on things Mulan, (Probably my favorite animated Disney movie) is all about struggles and sexism, Aladin is a great movie about corrupt leadership (while also pushing racial stereotypes which I don't like as much) but they don't really realize that, so I mean yes, but it shouldn't be, and a lot of the times isn't anymore. look at the fallout show, it's really popular, made for a obvious demographic and not for everyone, it's also new, it's not just a thing of the past, and as more popular movies and shows like this come out the more and more freedom these creative teams give, so at this point it's actually the perfect time to watch new Disney, because either it's gonna be the last time to, or they will start making some pretty good content. (sorry for the grammar, I didn't feel like fixing everything and sorry if it's hard to understand, I'm just heavily autistic and can't really articulate that kinda stuff to most people)
Spot on! I cannot stand the grifters completely ignoring all the creative teams, and pinning it on some kind of nefarious agenda from the studios. Plenty of Disney shows/movies coming out can do something really fascinating, and plenty are bland and uninteresting to me!
You’re right, it shouldn’t all fall on Disney, but i do believe that they play a big part in the failure of their latest films. Big production companies like Disney have had many successful films and thus they think they know what a movie should be like to get the most revenue possible. Inserting the theme of women’s empowerment as much as possible to appeal to the new generation or repeating the same tropes that proved to work in the past. Although the creative team does have the responsibility of crafting the story, Disney executives have the overall responsibility of making it work for maximum exploitation. That’s why they are the ones who decide which kind of stories they would like to tell, how they are told and for how long they will allow the production to go on. Hiring a director to make what they want and not letting them tell the story of the character they like in the way they feel represent them best (like it happened in the past with Jon Favreau with Iron Man) Unlike in the past, where movies were profoundly premeditated, today they choose quantity over quality because that means more money through means of merchandising (which is actually their biggest source of revenue, so they don’t care as much if a few films fail). So even thought I agree that the creative team holds a big responsibility on the success of the films, undoubtedly Disney has a big say in what they can tell and what they can’t.
True. My biggest gripe is the corpotization of the creative process and the fact none can come up with an idea without dozens of checks and focus groups signing off on it. It's disgusting. After Endgame, I was done with Marvel. The story was told, anything else just creates fatigue and a level of: "Hey-I've-seen-this-shit-before". And that gets old. Star Wars is a love of mine that even though they did what I probably wouldn't have done, it was still a choice. I had some issues with Abrams remaking episode 4, I had some(decidedly less than with Abrams) issues with Johnson. And with the corpo-rat freakout because of online idiots whining, we get an absolute clusterfuck of incomprehensible horseshit to the Nth degree, further showcasing the shortcomings of Abrams as a storyteller. At least Johnson tried something new...weird, kind of antithetical to the hero's journey, but new. Kennedy should've gone all Feige with an overarching story, and THEN let Abrams or Johnson have fun. Abrams is great at visual art, Johnson likes his creative weird shit. But without an overarching throughline, we get underdeveloped and/or underused characters like: Finn, Rose, General Hux, Snoke, and the original cast. It was focused too much on Rey, in an ensemble cast. ...anyway, sorry to rant.
@@comedicidiot I wouldn't say it's so much a myth, as I'm(me, personally) am sick of seeing the same thing over and over. It's a common thing, the "hero's journey" as a storytelling trope. It's been done so many times, it's an absolute cliché now. That was my point with the MCU/DCEU or superheroes in general. Star Wars, my absolute passion and favorite, needs more story diversity. Other stuff done in a tone like Rogue One/Andor. The Obi-Wan or Boba Fett shows were missing realistic portrayals for the world they're in. Kenobi dealing with his perceived failure and PTSD was great, until it wasn't. He just "got over it". That's unrealistic. Boba opting to go become the crime lord? Cool. But he doesn't do anything to earn it. His Sarlaac survival could've been a whole season, or at least a solid chunk with no flipping between different time periods. He only got one: "Look at how much of a badass I am" moment and it was in the episode "The Tragedy" of season 2 of the Mandalorian. Then we reunite Dyn and Grogu. Why?! That entire bit, and the rematch with Vader seemed focus grouped to death with only corporate influence.
Kenobi didn't just "get over it", he came to terms with it once he recognized that his friend was truly dead, that Anakin's death wasn't his fault. "You didn't kill Anakin Skywalker, I did." seems to be the part you didn't pay attention to. And you gotta be kidding about the Vader fight, that was the best part of the entire show. Can you imagine just how boring watching Boba Fett get out of the Sarlaac for an entire half of the season would be? Besides, Dave Filoni was barely involved with those projects, the most he did on the Boob of Boba Fett was for the two Mandalorian episodes. The reuniting of Dyn and Grogu was absolutely some corporate meddling, but they have a cute dynamic that I personally wanted to see way more of. I do think it should have been done in Mando's own show, though. The "hero's journey" is just a common storytelling structure, it's got nothing to do with superheroes in particular. Now, let's say we talk about what you actually mean by "hero's journey", that being just becoming a hero, that's discrediting the themes used to make each project unique. Ms. Marvel is heavily focused on ancestry, She-Hulk views the world of superheroes through the legal lens, Spider-Man: Now Way Home is about learning the accept the great responsibility that comes with great power. And then there's less conventional stories like Werewolf by Night, a story without a clear hero that's mostly about learning to trust. Saying every Marvel or DC movie is just about the hero's journey is discrediting most of what comes out of either of them and the thematic relevancy of any of those films. It sounds to me that you just don't really enjoy superhero movies, which is absolutely fine, it's just unfair to claim that they're all bland if you don't really care to see anything more than just the surface of any of these movies.
This is calm, honest, good video. Down-to-earth and hits the nail on the head of the issues surrounding this whole quagmire of creative/executive decisions and the culture war BS. Good on you for making this.
In your effort to stop people from oversimplifying, you continue to oversimplify. Acting like studios have little or no control over what they produce is just laughable. And saying "artist I like made thing I like so I will probably like the next thing they make" is just as, of not more, reductive than saying a particular company or studio tends to produce bad media. Also, claiming that those who complain specifically about Disney Star Wars or Disney Marvel are just conservative grifters is yet another oversimplification that is just as bad as what you're standing against. There are plenty of people who stand against Disney that aren't conservative, or who don't care about politics. Hell, one of the biggest Disney critics lives in the UK, where "conservative" means something completely different from what you're talking about. I understand wanting to praise certain creative teams and hold others accountable for their failures, but to completely discount the fact that these studios are paying for their salaries and own the IP they're using is just... an oversimplification.
"Also, claiming that those who complain specifically about Disney Star Wars or Disney Marvel are just conservative grifters is yet another oversimplification that is just as bad as what you're standing against. " nah, they're grifters bro. they have a choice to not talk about disney for another consecutive time, but nah. we need the maneh bruh
@@TheIqram12 stop just asserting that and actually think about it for a moment. The people claiming Disney makes bad shows/movies aren't the same people getting angry about "wokeness" in Disney. He's labeling one group of people as another in order to discredit any criticism of his sacred cow. Not everyone who hates Disney is a conservative or a grifter. I guarantee you don't even know what either of those words are.
@@TheIqram12 They really aren't. Hell, a lot of people who complain about wokeness in Disney aren't even conservative. They're centrist or even liberal. Just because someone isn't explicitly a leftist doesn't make them conservative. Just because someone disagrees with you or routinely talks about something important to them, that doesn't make them a grifter. Again, you have no idea what either term actually means, so your analysis that the people who criticize Marvel and Lucasfilm are just conservative grifters, or a "thin line" away from it, is hard to take seriously. Oh, and if you agree that they're a "thin line" away from it, that means they aren't the same. You yourself have admitted that they don't fall into the same group, so I don't know why you think his assertion that these people are the same is valid at all.
While of course a different creative team will do all the difference, is also important to remember that Disney is the one that decides how much time and budget will go to these products and creative teams, and also very important, how much the movie/show will be promoted. Sometimes even the best artists out there wont be able to do a good work if the productions is messy and the times are rushed.
True, especially with how Disney is aiming for quantity in a lot of their studios. Like with the movie Wish, it certainly had the potential to be great, but it only had like 2 drafts. You can tell from the final script that they hadn't fully realized the ideas they wanted to convey, ideas that would've been much more fleshed out if they were given more time to rewrite the script. And then there's a movie like Lisa Frankenstein that had a marketing budget of around $0 and didn't make back its production budget because no one saw the movie. But I still think good artists can shine even in a messy production, and good movies are still good even if they have bad marketing. For example, A New Hope was messy as hell. George Lucas was bad at directing, the actors hated their own lines, and there were regular weather and technical issues. But the edit is what saved Star Wars from becoming a massive flop. The same thing happened in gaming with Halo 2. Halo 2 has one one of the most historically rushed development cycles of any AAA game on the market. The entire game was put together in 10 months, people got divorced over the game's development, everyone was crunching to get the game done. It was a disaster, but Halo 2 still came out and became one of the best in the Halo series. Good artists can still create good art under even the worst conditions, even if being put through those conditions should never happen to anyone. Of course, these are anecdotal and shouldn't be taken as the norm, but I still think it's important to recognize the power of good artists.
But how much creative freedom are these people given by the parent company?
Oh tons. It changed from project to project, but Disney really only has creative control over its own movies, like how they interfered with the production of Wish. Marvel has control over Marvel and Lucasfilm has control over Lucasfilm. And even within those, the directors are given tons of creative freedom. Like with Marvel Studios, Feige really only has to interfere if the project isn't coherent with the existing MCU. But besides that, directors get to go nuts. If we were talking back in the late 2000's, then directors wouldn't have much creative control at all, but nowadays we get stuff like X-Men '97 and Werewolf by Night. And with a project like Obi-Wan Kenobi, the director was allowed to mess with canon a little to fit their creative vision. And if they didn't have creative freedom, would we really get a character like G'iah in Secret Invasion? Creative freedom is abundant in these studios. The only time you don't get much creative freedom is whenever you have to make a live action Spider-Man spin-off movie for Sony, since those are purely made for the money
saying the creative team behind secret invasion didn't care about the project seems reductive. Nothing gets made without people caring about it.
Eh, that's like saying someone cared about making Madame Web. Sure, someone probably cared about making it, but the people who truly cared weren't the right people and the if right people cared it was probably for the wrong reasons.
Someone’s never dealt with S+P before. Or been ordered to do reshoots because of the opinions of random test screeners. Or had studio execs breathing down your throat forcing you to change stuff. You seem to have a really naive view of how much freedom people at these studios are given. Studios do everything they can to prevent weird personal visions because they want to reach as wide an audience as possible. R-rated movies didn’t nearly disappear of creators’ own accord. Studios, with rare exception, control every part of the movie making process. This is the kind of opinion only someone who’s never worked in the industry could have.
Also, If you want to talk about someone like James Gunn being able to do good work on Marvel movies, you have to recognize that the original GotG movie was a rare risk for the studio and the lesson they took away wasn’t to let creators make their personal vision but to force every other director to make Gunn style humor. This is why Edgar Wright was kicked off of Ant Man. The only other time I can think that they took a risk like that is the Eternals and after that failed I don’t seem them trying that again. They specifically pick new directors without experience because they know that can control them. Or they pick yes men. People with ideas aren’t looked on kindly.
Someone hasn't done their research, but I have.
screenrant.com/eternals-movie-director-chloe-zhao-creative-control/
screenrant.com/captain-marvel-2-nia-dacosta-creative-freedom-response/
wegotthiscovered.com/movies/thor-ragnarok-director-taika-waititi-creative-freedom/
screenrant.com/james-gunn-guardians-of-galaxy-2-marvel-creative-freedom/
bleedingcool.com/movies/ant-man-and-the-wasp-director-peyton-reed-freedom/
bleedingcool.com/movies/ryan-coogler-praises-marvel-studios/
The only reason Edgar Wright was kicked off of Ant Man was because of the old Marvel executive board. Kevin Feige was out dealing with Sony for the rights to Spider-Man, he wasn't available to go over the Ant Man script. The people who did read it was the executive board, and they were some old people who didn't see the value in creative freedom. If Kevin Feige was there, Edgar Wright likely wouldn't have been "kicked off" of Ant Man (he left of his own will because he didn't like what the board did to his script). Very soon after Ant Man, the exec board was removed from Marvel Studios and now creative freedom has a much greater value within the company.
That kinda shows the issues with how dumb story execs are, it is a tale as old as time, you try to please everyone you please no one. I heard that Stephen king only writes with his wife's opinion in mind, don't know if it's true, but it sounds sweet, and kinda smart. See the thing you aren't talking into account here, is that the creative team is just that, a creative team, and their job is to make a good and entertaining movie, which is (almost) never movies targeted towards everyone! And you were semi-right as Disney is all about pushing the ideas of movies for everyone as that's basically what they made bank on. They got so popular on kids movies and shows that almost any kids would like, but those kids are growing up and I think Disney has slightly started to catch onto that, but the thing is that they ALSO have some of their best movies as very strong takes on things Mulan, (Probably my favorite animated Disney movie) is all about struggles and sexism, Aladin is a great movie about corrupt leadership (while also pushing racial stereotypes which I don't like as much) but they don't really realize that, so I mean yes, but it shouldn't be, and a lot of the times isn't anymore. look at the fallout show, it's really popular, made for a obvious demographic and not for everyone, it's also new, it's not just a thing of the past, and as more popular movies and shows like this come out the more and more freedom these creative teams give, so at this point it's actually the perfect time to watch new Disney, because either it's gonna be the last time to, or they will start making some pretty good content. (sorry for the grammar, I didn't feel like fixing everything and sorry if it's hard to understand, I'm just heavily autistic and can't really articulate that kinda stuff to most people)
What the hell happened with TH-cam recommendations?
Spot on! I cannot stand the grifters completely ignoring all the creative teams, and pinning it on some kind of nefarious agenda from the studios. Plenty of Disney shows/movies coming out can do something really fascinating, and plenty are bland and uninteresting to me!
You’re right, it shouldn’t all fall on Disney, but i do believe that they play a big part in the failure of their latest films. Big production companies like Disney have had many successful films and thus they think they know what a movie should be like to get the most revenue possible. Inserting the theme of women’s empowerment as much as possible to appeal to the new generation or repeating the same tropes that proved to work in the past.
Although the creative team does have the responsibility of crafting the story, Disney executives have the overall responsibility of making it work for maximum exploitation. That’s why they are the ones who decide which kind of stories they would like to tell, how they are told and for how long they will allow the production to go on. Hiring a director to make what they want and not letting them tell the story of the character they like in the way they feel represent them best (like it happened in the past with Jon Favreau with Iron Man)
Unlike in the past, where movies were profoundly premeditated, today they choose quantity over quality because that means more money through means of merchandising (which is actually their biggest source of revenue, so they don’t care as much if a few films fail).
So even thought I agree that the creative team holds a big responsibility on the success of the films, undoubtedly Disney has a big say in what they can tell and what they can’t.
True. My biggest gripe is the corpotization of the creative process and the fact none can come up with an idea without dozens of checks and focus groups signing off on it. It's disgusting. After Endgame, I was done with Marvel. The story was told, anything else just creates fatigue and a level of: "Hey-I've-seen-this-shit-before". And that gets old.
Star Wars is a love of mine that even though they did what I probably wouldn't have done, it was still a choice. I had some issues with Abrams remaking episode 4, I had some(decidedly less than with Abrams) issues with Johnson. And with the corpo-rat freakout because of online idiots whining, we get an absolute clusterfuck of incomprehensible horseshit to the Nth degree, further showcasing the shortcomings of Abrams as a storyteller. At least Johnson tried something new...weird, kind of antithetical to the hero's journey, but new.
Kennedy should've gone all Feige with an overarching story, and THEN let Abrams or Johnson have fun. Abrams is great at visual art, Johnson likes his creative weird shit. But without an overarching throughline, we get underdeveloped and/or underused characters like: Finn, Rose, General Hux, Snoke, and the original cast. It was focused too much on Rey, in an ensemble cast.
...anyway, sorry to rant.
Superhero fatigue is a grifter myth, same for the idea that nothing after Endgame is unique and creative.
@@comedicidiot I wouldn't say it's so much a myth, as I'm(me, personally) am sick of seeing the same thing over and over. It's a common thing, the "hero's journey" as a storytelling trope. It's been done so many times, it's an absolute cliché now. That was my point with the MCU/DCEU or superheroes in general. Star Wars, my absolute passion and favorite, needs more story diversity. Other stuff done in a tone like Rogue One/Andor. The Obi-Wan or Boba Fett shows were missing realistic portrayals for the world they're in. Kenobi dealing with his perceived failure and PTSD was great, until it wasn't. He just "got over it". That's unrealistic. Boba opting to go become the crime lord? Cool. But he doesn't do anything to earn it. His Sarlaac survival could've been a whole season, or at least a solid chunk with no flipping between different time periods. He only got one: "Look at how much of a badass I am" moment and it was in the episode "The Tragedy" of season 2 of the Mandalorian. Then we reunite Dyn and Grogu. Why?! That entire bit, and the rematch with Vader seemed focus grouped to death with only corporate influence.
Kenobi didn't just "get over it", he came to terms with it once he recognized that his friend was truly dead, that Anakin's death wasn't his fault. "You didn't kill Anakin Skywalker, I did." seems to be the part you didn't pay attention to. And you gotta be kidding about the Vader fight, that was the best part of the entire show.
Can you imagine just how boring watching Boba Fett get out of the Sarlaac for an entire half of the season would be? Besides, Dave Filoni was barely involved with those projects, the most he did on the Boob of Boba Fett was for the two Mandalorian episodes. The reuniting of Dyn and Grogu was absolutely some corporate meddling, but they have a cute dynamic that I personally wanted to see way more of. I do think it should have been done in Mando's own show, though.
The "hero's journey" is just a common storytelling structure, it's got nothing to do with superheroes in particular. Now, let's say we talk about what you actually mean by "hero's journey", that being just becoming a hero, that's discrediting the themes used to make each project unique. Ms. Marvel is heavily focused on ancestry, She-Hulk views the world of superheroes through the legal lens, Spider-Man: Now Way Home is about learning the accept the great responsibility that comes with great power. And then there's less conventional stories like Werewolf by Night, a story without a clear hero that's mostly about learning to trust. Saying every Marvel or DC movie is just about the hero's journey is discrediting most of what comes out of either of them and the thematic relevancy of any of those films. It sounds to me that you just don't really enjoy superhero movies, which is absolutely fine, it's just unfair to claim that they're all bland if you don't really care to see anything more than just the surface of any of these movies.
This is calm, honest, good video. Down-to-earth and hits the nail on the head of the issues surrounding this whole quagmire of creative/executive decisions and the culture war BS. Good on you for making this.
In your effort to stop people from oversimplifying, you continue to oversimplify. Acting like studios have little or no control over what they produce is just laughable. And saying "artist I like made thing I like so I will probably like the next thing they make" is just as, of not more, reductive than saying a particular company or studio tends to produce bad media.
Also, claiming that those who complain specifically about Disney Star Wars or Disney Marvel are just conservative grifters is yet another oversimplification that is just as bad as what you're standing against. There are plenty of people who stand against Disney that aren't conservative, or who don't care about politics. Hell, one of the biggest Disney critics lives in the UK, where "conservative" means something completely different from what you're talking about.
I understand wanting to praise certain creative teams and hold others accountable for their failures, but to completely discount the fact that these studios are paying for their salaries and own the IP they're using is just... an oversimplification.
"Also, claiming that those who complain specifically about Disney Star Wars or Disney Marvel are just conservative grifters is yet another oversimplification that is just as bad as what you're standing against. "
nah, they're grifters bro. they have a choice to not talk about disney for another consecutive time, but nah. we need the maneh bruh
@@TheIqram12 stop just asserting that and actually think about it for a moment. The people claiming Disney makes bad shows/movies aren't the same people getting angry about "wokeness" in Disney. He's labeling one group of people as another in order to discredit any criticism of his sacred cow. Not everyone who hates Disney is a conservative or a grifter. I guarantee you don't even know what either of those words are.
@@michaelkaruza490 both of them are separated with a very thin line so yeah what he's saying is valid in certain aspect.
@@TheIqram12 They really aren't. Hell, a lot of people who complain about wokeness in Disney aren't even conservative. They're centrist or even liberal. Just because someone isn't explicitly a leftist doesn't make them conservative. Just because someone disagrees with you or routinely talks about something important to them, that doesn't make them a grifter. Again, you have no idea what either term actually means, so your analysis that the people who criticize Marvel and Lucasfilm are just conservative grifters, or a "thin line" away from it, is hard to take seriously. Oh, and if you agree that they're a "thin line" away from it, that means they aren't the same. You yourself have admitted that they don't fall into the same group, so I don't know why you think his assertion that these people are the same is valid at all.
@@michaelkaruza490 they're aren't the same, but there's moments where it'll be one.