In the case of Disney, there's been some obvious pushing of an LGBTQ-inclusionary agenda in many of their products over the past decade or so, but I think their bad decisions have been due to simple arrogance.

Headland = I like Russian Doll but obviously horrible choice to lead a Star Wars show.

Rian Johnson = I like a lot of his other stuff but an obviously horrible choice to lead a Star Wars trilogy movie.

Both people above have made other good shows, but it should be obvious to a blindman watching those other shows that they're completely wrong for Star Wars. But I think the arrogance of the Disney studio heads fooled them into thinking they could ignore and go beyond the core Star Wars audience, to make some sort of avant garde hire that would revolutionize the franchise and solidify how genius the studio heads were.

In the case of Headland, the whole gay aspect of the hiring and direction Headland wanted to take it was just a woke bonus for Disney.

So attributing the bad writing, production, etc. of those projects to a diversity agenda is putting too fine of a point on it. It's primarily just plain ignorant and arrogant decision-making by the studio heads when it comes to deciding the showrunners. But then you have agenda-driven screenwriters, etc. tagging along for the ride and taking advantage of these studio leaders trying so desperately to be revolutionary.

easttexasaggie04 said:

---

I have to REALLY REALLY want to see a movie in theaters now to pay the price. I can wait a month or so and see it from the comfort of my couch. There are some movies that are way better on theaters...Dune, etc etc.

---

Genuinely think this is the problems most movies have. Every now and then a movie will do gangbusters but the average movie is not worth the crazy cost to thr average fan

It isn't as much about who they choose to direct, but about the direction they want it taken. Disney can easily get someone good to direct, but those in charge still have the responsibility for making it clear what they want. If what they wanted was to excite the mostly male old school SW fanbase as well as bring younger and female viewers on board, they could have given that directive and vision to talented writers and directors and set them loose. They either didn't have their priorities straight or had no idea what 90% of SW fans wanted to see, but they botched it so badly with the sequel trilogy and most of the Disney+ series.

Rogue One stands out. Solo was pretty cool but by then too many fans had given up. It's a shame KK and co got their hands on SW and decided it needed to be reformed to appeal to the "modern audience". Very expensive mistakes.

fig96 said:

---

I think the flaw in this argument is that a lot of other really successful creators would've been "obvious horrible choices" until they weren't.

---

. Ok, in the Star Wars franchise, who are some examples?

You can look at what John Watts and Tony Gilroy did before their stints in the Star Wars universe and think to yourself, "Yeah, they'll fit in and make some really cool creative shows."

Johnson and Headland? Nope.

Yes, there are a lot of other "really successful creators" that would be able to create great Star Wars shows. But my point is that you can almost always get a really good grasp of those creators by looking at their past creations since most creators have their niche. Whoever chose Johnson and Headland absolutely should have known that whatever they'd create wouldn't be appreciated by a large portion of the Star Wars core audience.

I think you and I are essentially saying the same thing, just coming at it from different angles. Who is selected to lead these movies or shows goes hand in hand with the direction that the studio wants to take them.

Take a look at Marvel. A director like Edgar Wright is selected to lead a Marvel because they're a successful, inventive creator. But at some point Marvel and Wright both realize that the vision they each have is different, so they part ways. So you can't just take any creator and slot them into a franchise and expect the product to be successful. It needs to be a good fit.

I think you and I just differ on how much "woke" plays into those decisions being made about who's leading these movies.

Quad Dog said:

---

maroon barchetta said:

---

Quad Dog said:

---

Sea Speed said:

---

I'm honestly surprised that when the WNBA discussion arose it took so long for the obvious fact that Caitlin Clark is the entire reason for the surge in popularity to be brought up.

---

So? Every sports league has a handful of players that were the backbone of the league during that league's establishment or in times of struggle.

---

Times of struggle?

Like the first 25 years of the league's existence?

---

If the WNBA is consistently profitable after 25 years, then it is ahead schedule of the NBA consistently turning a profit by 15 years. NBA wasn't consistently profitable until the 80s, 40 years after its creation. Again, mostly built on the back of a few superstar players.

---

The WNBA isn't profitable. No one goes to the games or watches it on TV. It only exists because the NBA pays for it. Caitlin Clark and Sophie Cunningham got people talking about it, but its biggest publicity lately was from people throwing dildos onto the court.

Count me in as someone who used to go to the movies all the time, but rarely goes anymore. I still enjoy going to the theater but just don't go that much. I think the only ones I've seen in the theater this year were Superman and Thunderbolts. Probably a combination of prices, less movies that I consider must see in the the theater, or maybe just getting older. Another difference is how quickly movies are released to home video. I remember as a kid, it would be forever until you could get a movie on tape, some weren't released at all, so if you didn't see it in the theater, there was no telling when you might have a chance to see it again. Now, if you miss it in the theater, you can watch it on tv 2 months later.

I'm not sure why I keep defending the WNBA. I don't think I've ever watched a game. I don't really watch any basketball.

But WNBA has recently been setting attendance and TV records for themselves. They just got a record TV deal worth of money. They've had to face economic and cultural hardships just like the older leagues did in their founding: recessions, pandemic, housing bubbles, crazy inflation, rapidly changing TV landscape, way more competition for entertainment money than any other league faced during its founding. Yes the WNBA is artificially propped up by the NBA. But so was the NBA artificially propped up by its owners for 40 years. The NBA had way more team failures, moves, and folds during its first 40 years than the WNBA ever has. And all sports league are established and grown on the back of a few players. The NBA wouldn't exist in its current form without Russell, Cousy, Bird, Magic, and Jordan in different eras just like the WNBA wouldn't exist in its current form without Clark, Swoopes, Moore, etc.

Quad Dog said:

---

I'm not sure why I keep defending the WNBA. I don't think I've ever watched a game. I don't really watch any basketball.

But WNBA has recently been setting attendance and TV records for themselves. They just got a record TV deal worth of money. They've had to face economic and cultural hardships just like the older leagues did in their founding: recessions, pandemic, housing bubbles, crazy inflation, rapidly changing TV landscape, way more competition for entertainment money than any other league faced during its founding. Yes the WNBA is artificially propped up by the NBA. But so was the NBA artificially propped up by its owners for 40 years. The NBA had way more team failures, moves, and folds during its first 40 years than the WNBA ever has. And all sports league are established and grown on the back of a few players. The NBA wouldn't exist in its current form without Russell, Cousy, Bird, Magic, and Jordan in different eras just like the WNBA wouldn't exist in its current form without Clark, Swoopes, Moore, etc.

---

I realize this is a derail but genuinely curious. Although their books are not public, a quick Google says the general consensus is the WNBA has lost over $10 million a year every year of its existence. Over 30 years, we're talking about losses north of $300 million. Are you saying the NBA's first 30 to 40 years resulted in similar if not worse losses? And the team owners ponied up the money to cover these enormous losses for decades? This is literally the first I'm hearing g of this. Why would they do that?

I haven't done much research into it, but I think there were certain NBA franchises that were profitable all along, but the league as a whole had a lot of unprofitable teams.

JCA1 said:

---

Quad Dog said:

---

I'm not sure why I keep defending the WNBA. I don't think I've ever watched a game. I don't really watch any basketball.

But WNBA has recently been setting attendance and TV records for themselves. They just got a record TV deal worth of money. They've had to face economic and cultural hardships just like the older leagues did in their founding: recessions, pandemic, housing bubbles, crazy inflation, rapidly changing TV landscape, way more competition for entertainment money than any other league faced during its founding. Yes the WNBA is artificially propped up by the NBA. But so was the NBA artificially propped up by its owners for 40 years. The NBA had way more team failures, moves, and folds during its first 40 years than the WNBA ever has. And all sports league are established and grown on the back of a few players. The NBA wouldn't exist in its current form without Russell, Cousy, Bird, Magic, and Jordan in different eras just like the WNBA wouldn't exist in its current form without Clark, Swoopes, Moore, etc.

---

I realize this is a derail but genuinely curious. Although their books are not public, a quick Google says the general consensus is the WNBA has lost over $10 million a year every year of its existence. Over 30 years, we're talking about losses north of $300 million. Are you saying the NBA's first 30 to 40 years resulted in similar if not worse losses? And the team owners ponied up the money to cover these enormous losses for decades? This is literally the first I'm hearing g of this. Why would they do that?

---

In the 70s, the NBA's average attendance per game was 8,000, and most of the arenas were at least double that capacity. The best player was Kareem, who had converted to Muslim and had very strong poltiical views that most white people didn't like.

Half the 70s were a recession and the NBA was increasingly black in a time where black people were at a massive deficiency to whites in terms of salary.

The league was so bad on TV that NBA finals game were played in the daytime and shown late night on tape delay. There was a rampant drug problem, fights on the court frequently, and the game was slow, especially compared to the upstart ABA.

According to the AP, the 1979 Finals finished 20th out of 30 shows on TV at a time where there were only 3 networks to watch on normal TV.

In 1977, Rudy Tomjanovich, one of the league's best white players, got sucker punched by the Lakers' Kermit Washington, a black guy, and his career ended. In 1979, the Knicks fielded an all-black roster, and a very racist nickname soon started cropping up, a variation of "Knickerbockers" that I'm sure I don't have to explain.

It was an ugly game played by people with a lot of bad habits in a country that was only one decade removed from the Civil Rights Act and segregation and MLK's murder.

The revisionist history tells us that Magic and Bird's coming to the league saved it in 1979, but most writers will tell you that it was Bird who got white people to watch the NBA and thus make it a mainstream sport in places where that really wasn't the case. Sounds a whole lot like Caitlin Clark, ay?

His rivalry with Magic in college made Magic a very interesting person to watch for fans, and Magic's charm and smile and personality in an era where most black players dressed and acted like they were trying out or a role in Shaft or Superfly branded him as the first black player that it was "OK" to cheer for. He was in Hollywood, super personable, and he and Bird were the classic East Coast / West Coast rivalry that the sport needed. Jerry West had been the Lakers' paragon before that, but the Celtics used to beat the **** out of his teams in the Finals and there was virtually no TV back then. Fortunately there was no TMZ or Internet around to report that Magic was also having sex with pretty much anything in Hollywood with a pulse. But his - I hate say it, but "Whiteness' - lighter skin, better speaker, joyous style of play, opened the door for people to embrace guys like Isaiah - before he was a scumbag, and Dr. J. - once the league merged, which led to Jordan. He transcended race. White people who couldn't stand Wilt Chamberlain or Bill Russell or the Big O propped up Jerry West as the all-time best player - he's in the logo right - but there wasn't a person alive who could honestly say that Michael wasn't the best of all time.

I can't speak for how the NBA performed in the 50s and 60s, but without the endorsements and jersey sales and TV, how much of a profit could they have been making?

And if there's one constant about sports owners throughout history, it's that they will go against sound business advice because they are owning a sports team, the basic fantasy of every person when they reach their apex of playing a sport. You get a franchise and you are willing to take a bath on it for as long as you can because it's yours and you're convinced you can build a winner. So I would not be surprised if the early NBA owners reguarly were bleeding money and using their other ventures to cover it up.

Drunken Overseas Bettor said:

---

JCA1 said:

---

Quad Dog said:

---

I'm not sure why I keep defending the WNBA. I don't think I've ever watched a game. I don't really watch any basketball.

But WNBA has recently been setting attendance and TV records for themselves. They just got a record TV deal worth of money. They've had to face economic and cultural hardships just like the older leagues did in their founding: recessions, pandemic, housing bubbles, crazy inflation, rapidly changing TV landscape, way more competition for entertainment money than any other league faced during its founding. Yes the WNBA is artificially propped up by the NBA. But so was the NBA artificially propped up by its owners for 40 years. The NBA had way more team failures, moves, and folds during its first 40 years than the WNBA ever has. And all sports league are established and grown on the back of a few players. The NBA wouldn't exist in its current form without Russell, Cousy, Bird, Magic, and Jordan in different eras just like the WNBA wouldn't exist in its current form without Clark, Swoopes, Moore, etc.

---

I realize this is a derail but genuinely curious. Although their books are not public, a quick Google says the general consensus is the WNBA has lost over $10 million a year every year of its existence. Over 30 years, we're talking about losses north of $300 million. Are you saying the NBA's first 30 to 40 years resulted in similar if not worse losses? And the team owners ponied up the money to cover these enormous losses for decades? This is literally the first I'm hearing g of this. Why would they do that?

---

In the 70s, the NBA's average attendance per game was 8,000, and most of the arenas were at least double that capacity. The best player was Kareem, who had converted to Muslim and had very strong poltiical views that most white people didn't like.

Half the 70s were a recession and the NBA was increasingly black in a time where black people were at a massive deficiency to whites in terms of salary.

The league was so bad on TV that NBA finals game were played in the daytime and shown late night on tape delay. There was a rampant drug problem, fights on the court frequently, and the game was slow, especially compared to the upstart ABA.

According to the AP, the 1979 Finals finished 20th out of 30 shows on TV at a time where there were only 3 networks to watch on normal TV.

In 1977, Rudy Tomjanovich, one of the league's best white players, got sucker punched by the Lakers' Kermit Washington, a black guy, and his career ended. In 1979, the Knicks fielded an all-black roster, and a very racist nickname soon started cropping up, a variation of "Knickerbockers" that I'm sure I don't have to explain.

It was an ugly game played by people with a lot of bad habits in a country that was only one decade removed from the Civil Rights Act and segregation and MLK's murder.

The revisionist history tells us that Magic and Bird's coming to the league saved it in 1979, but most writers will tell you that it was Bird who got white people to watch the NBA and thus make it a mainstream sport in places where that really wasn't the case. Sounds a whole lot like Caitlin Clark, ay?

His rivalry with Magic in college made Magic a very interesting person to watch for fans, and Magic's charm and smile and personality in an era where most black players dressed and acted like they were trying out or a role in Shaft or Superfly branded him as the first black player that it was "OK" to cheer for. He was in Hollywood, super personable, and he and Bird were the classic East Coast / West Coast rivalry that the sport needed. Jerry West had been the Lakers' paragon before that, but the Celtics used to beat the **** out of his teams in the Finals and there was virtually no TV back then. Fortunately there was no TMZ or Internet around to report that Magic was also having sex with pretty much anything in Hollywood with a pulse. But his - I hate say it, but "Whiteness' - lighter skin, better speaker, joyous style of play, opened the door for people to embrace guys like Isaiah - before he was a scumbag, and Dr. J. - once the league merged, which led to Jordan. He transcended race. White people who couldn't stand Wilt Chamberlain or Bill Russell or the Big O propped up Jerry West as the all-time best player - he's in the logo right - but there wasn't a person alive who could honestly say that Michael wasn't the best of all time.

I can't speak for how the NBA performed in the 50s and 60s, but without the endorsements and jersey sales and TV, how much of a profit could they have been making?

And if there's one constant about sports owners throughout history, it's that they will go against sound business advice because they are owning a sports team, the basic fantasy of every person when they reach their apex of playing a sport. You get a franchise and you are willing to take a bath on it for as long as you can because it's yours and you're convinced you can build a winner. So I would not be surprised if the early NBA owners reguarly were bleeding money and using their other ventures to cover it up.

---

Familiar with all that. My only question is whether the owners subsidized the product (to the tune of millions) for literally decades. Like you said, the league didn't have a lot going for it back then. That's why I find it very unlikely that people would throw money at it for decades to keep it going. Even if the league didn't make much, as long as they didn't spend much, it can be successful.

FL_Ag1998 said:

---

fig96 said:

---

I think the flaw in this argument is that a lot of other really successful creators would've been "obvious horrible choices" until they weren't.

---

. Ok, in the Star Wars franchise, who are some examples?

You can look at what John Watts and Tony Gilroy did before their stints in the Star Wars universe and think to yourself, "Yeah, they'll fit in and make some really cool creative shows."

Johnson and Headland? Nope.

Yes, there are a lot of other "really successful creators" that would be able to create great Star Wars shows. But my point is that you can almost always get a really good grasp of those creators by looking at their past creations since most creators have their niche. Whoever chose Johnson and Headland absolutely should have known that whatever they'd create wouldn't be appreciated by a large portion of the Star Wars core audience.

---

In Star Wars Bryce Dallas Howard is the primary example, she'd directed almost nothing before doing the best episode of S1 of Mando (and needs her own show already). Rick Famuyiwa and Deborah Chow also had limited experience. And Jon Watts is a weird one to call out here as he'd already directed two Spider-Man films, but prior to Spider-Man: Homecoming he'd done nothing of significance.

And speaking of there are tons in the MCU, from Watts to the Russo Bros to Taika to Favreau to Gunn to Coogler and more.

You don't know until you know.

Totally with you on Kennedy. The fact there wasn't a clearly outlined path for eps 7, 8, and 9 of a billion dollar franchise before letting Johnson just do whatever with TLJ is wild.

oops....meant to post this on the box office thread instead....

Quote:

---

Familiar with all that. My only question is whether the owners subsidized the product (to the tune of millions) for literally decades. Like you said, the league didn't have a lot going for it back then. That's why I find it very unlikely that people would throw money at it for decades to keep it going. Even if the league didn't make much, as long as they didn't spend much, it can be successful.

---

Here is exactly why they did it- because owning a sports team isn't exactly about how much money you make. It's largely the narcissism that comes with being able to say you own it. People have to have done well in business (or be born into it) to be able to buy one, but that doesn't mean they always think with that same team.

Sports teams are a property on a good beach- once you have one, you're willing to keep pouring money into it, because we ain't inventing new beaches.

Same things happen in movies- some executives sling around too much money because they want to be "tastemakers" or like to spend money on "auteurs". Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. The Warner Bros team was about to be run out of town heading into this year for doing just that, then had a ridiculous hit rate in 2025.

fig96 said:

---

FL_Ag1998 said:

---

fig96 said:

---

I think the flaw in this argument is that a lot of other really successful creators would've been "obvious horrible choices" until they weren't.

---

. Ok, in the Star Wars franchise, who are some examples?

You can look at what John Watts and Tony Gilroy did before their stints in the Star Wars universe and think to yourself, "Yeah, they'll fit in and make some really cool creative shows."

Johnson and Headland? Nope.

Yes, there are a lot of other "really successful creators" that would be able to create great Star Wars shows. But my point is that you can almost always get a really good grasp of those creators by looking at their past creations since most creators have their niche. Whoever chose Johnson and Headland absolutely should have known that whatever they'd create wouldn't be appreciated by a large portion of the Star Wars core audience.

---

In Star Wars Bryce Dallas Howard is the primary example, she'd directed almost nothing before doing the best episode of S1 of Mando (and needs her own show already). Rick Famuyiwa and Deborah Chow also had limited experience. And Jon Watts is a weird one to call out here as he'd already directed two Spider-Man films, but prior to Spider-Man: Homecoming he'd done nothing of significance.

And speaking of there are tons in the MCU, from Watts to the Russo Bros to Taika to Favreau to Gunn to Coogler and more.

You don't know until you know.

---

You think the S1 episode of Mando on the planet with the Raiders of the Lost Prawn Farm is the best one of that season?

20ag07 said:

---

Quote:

---

Familiar with all that. My only question is whether the owners subsidized the product (to the tune of millions) for literally decades. Like you said, the league didn't have a lot going for it back then. That's why I find it very unlikely that people would throw money at it for decades to keep it going. Even if the league didn't make much, as long as they didn't spend much, it can be successful.

---

Here is exactly why they did it- because owning a sports team isn't exactly about how much money you make. It's largely the narcissism that comes with being able to say you own it. People have to have done well in business (or be born into it) to be able to buy one, but that doesn't mean they always think with that same team.

Sports teams are a property on a good beach- once you have one, you're willing to keep pouring money into it, because we ain't inventing new beaches.

Same things happen in movies- some executives sling around too much money because they want to be "tastemakers" or like to spend money on "auteurs". Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. The Warner Bros team was about to be run out of town heading into this year for doing just that, then had a ridiculous hit rate in 2025.

---

That's applying a modern perspective. There's no real reason to think, in 1970, that owning a basketball team was something worth pouring millions into annually because it'll be such a hot commodity 40 years from now.

And that's beside the point, I'm not looking for brainstorming ideas for why they might have done it, I'm asking for proof that it actually happened, since that's what the poster I was responding to claimed.

And I should add, it may have happened! The league was not on sound financial footing back then. But I would be real surprised if it lost anything like what the wnba has lost.

I don't have the time to dig up financials for the NBA from 1950 but its very clear that lot of people were losing a lot of money for a long time. I also don't have time to look up why. Other posters have speculated why, I would only be guessing the same reason. It's the same reason any millionaire chooses to lose a bunch of money: vanity, pride, hubris, tax write off, investing for a potential future windfall.

https://www.powerplays.news/p/the-nba-grew-exponentially-in-its

maroon barchetta said:

---

fig96 said:

---

FL_Ag1998 said:

---

fig96 said:

---

I think the flaw in this argument is that a lot of other really successful creators would've been "obvious horrible choices" until they weren't.

---

. Ok, in the Star Wars franchise, who are some examples?

You can look at what John Watts and Tony Gilroy did before their stints in the Star Wars universe and think to yourself, "Yeah, they'll fit in and make some really cool creative shows."

Johnson and Headland? Nope.

Yes, there are a lot of other "really successful creators" that would be able to create great Star Wars shows. But my point is that you can almost always get a really good grasp of those creators by looking at their past creations since most creators have their niche. Whoever chose Johnson and Headland absolutely should have known that whatever they'd create wouldn't be appreciated by a large portion of the Star Wars core audience.

---

In Star Wars Bryce Dallas Howard is the primary example, she'd directed almost nothing before doing the best episode of S1 of Mando (and needs her own show already). Rick Famuyiwa and Deborah Chow also had limited experience. And Jon Watts is a weird one to call out here as he'd already directed two Spider-Man films, but prior to Spider-Man: Homecoming he'd done nothing of significance.

And speaking of there are tons in the MCU, from Watts to the Russo Bros to Taika to Favreau to Gunn to Coogler and more.

You don't know until you know.

---

You think the S1 episode of Mando on the planet with the Raiders of the Lost Prawn Farm is the best one of that season?

---

Sorry, meant S2 (The Heiress which introduced Bo-Katan).

Please return the money I sent for tickets that were not provided.

Ksjcdj said:

---

Please return the money I sent for tickets that were not provided.

---

What is that, 13 of your last 15 posts or so (as far back as I looked)?

You're not going to let him go, but the requests are undeniably polite.

I looked for activity from him to see if he was legit. I thought posting on his posts might save someone else $. I can delete if you would like.

No worries.

I'm sorry you were scammed.