Disney could sell Lucasfilm ?

[blewis17]

Yeah. So Disney currently owns 2/3rds of Hulu while Comcast owns the last 1/3. Based on the terms of the deal in 2019, Disney is expected to buy the final part from Comcast which is estimated to be about $9 billion. Iger seems to be backtracking because streaming is a huge loss but Comcast can force Disney to buy out its stake in early 2024 (as can Disney if streaming did do well).

Since Disney is strapped for cash and streaming is a dud, they need to pray that Comcast will “alter the deal” and find a new buyer to buy out their minority share.

Iger definately did not care about the purse strings when he was on his shopping spree (which inflated Disney stock price which made him seem “good”) and Chapek was the fall guy who needed to rebalance the budget. Now that Iger is back, he needs to solve the mess he made.

The online Disney fandom, in general, LOVED that Chapek was fired and Iger was (temporarily) brought back. Chapek is as dry as an Excel spreadsheet and not a creative type... he is a cost cutter, running a huge corporation. And that's fine if you manage Staples or Pepsi. But I don't believe that Chapek could ever be the public face of a mega entertainment company.

But you are right... all these huge investments were Iger's and his alone.

If Disney needs cash, then they could...

1) Sell Lucasfilm and sign a 99 year agreement to use the characters in media and theme parks
2) Sell Marvel and sign a 99 year agreement to use the characters in media and theme parks
3) Sell ESPN and Hulu

At one time, Disney was the BEST overall at family entertainment. And I really think that needs to be their goal. To the detriment of pure profit, Disney needs to re-focus on having the BEST theme parks (in terms of attraction experiences, cleanliness, maintenance, employee payroll, customer service and friendliness), family entertainment on both TV/media and film (maybe a little bit less on the gritty, angsty, social justice warrior type characters). Keep their nose out of ANYTHING that smells political or socially charged (you are free to have your private opinion, but corporately the response is "no comment"), and treat their customers with respect.

 

[joberg]

The online Disney fandom, in general, LOVED that Chapek was fired and Iger was (temporarily) brought back. Chapek is as dry as an Excel spreadsheet and not a creative type... he is a cost cutter, running a huge corporation. And that's fine if you manage Staples or Pepsi. But I don't believe that Chapek could ever be the public face of a mega entertainment company.

But you are right... all these huge investments were Iger's and his alone.

If Disney needs cash, then they could...

1) Sell Lucasfilm and sign a 99 year agreement to use the characters in media and theme parks
2) Sell Marvel and sign a 99 year agreement to use the characters in media and theme parks
3) Sell ESPN and Hulu

At one time, Disney was the BEST overall at family entertainment. And I really think that needs to be their goal. To the detriment of pure profit, Disney needs to re-focus on having the BEST theme parks (in terms of attraction experiences, cleanliness, maintenance, employee payroll, customer service and friendliness), family entertainment on both TV/media and film (maybe a little bit less on the gritty, angsty, social justice warrior type characters). Keep their nose out of ANYTHING that smells political or socially charged (you are free to have your private opinion, but corporately the response is "no comment"), and treat their customers with respect.

"Keep their nose out of ANYTHING that smells political or socially charged (you are free to have your private opinion, but corporately the response is "no comment"), and treat their customers with respect."
Problem is that people working at the Mouse Corp are highly politico-socially engaged into stuff that shouldn't influence any story line or franchises Imagine the number of triggered employees if said Disney goes 180 on certain well- placed-woke-stuff in future films

 

[robstyle]

For Disney to change the checklist agenda and woke policies would mean many contracts would be renegotiated with actors, department heads, management... Disney is well known for their own your soul contracts as much as they are for their penny pinching tactics. I've prior said the woke era of the industry is the worst to exist and it's well past it's expiration date. The current management seems unwilling to admit failure and defeat on any level which is what's needed to move forward.
Let's see where this is at in eleven months.

 

[drusselmeyer]

... and besides, Disney has never been about keeping the same old memories of the same old subjects and characters generation after generation after generation like some kind of family tradition.





No wait, nevermind.

Aw c'mon, that was a little funny!

 

[Cephus]

For Disney to change the checklist agenda and woke policies would mean many contracts would be renegotiated with actors, department heads, management... Disney is well known for their own your soul contracts as much as they are for their penny pinching tactics. I've prior said the woke era of the industry is the worst to exist and it's well past it's expiration date. The current management seems unwilling to admit failure and defeat on any level which is what's needed to move forward.
Let's see where this is at in eleven months.

I'd be entirely fine if they wound up in a bankruptcy court.

 

[drusselmeyer]

So, who buys Disney if it goes bankrupt?

-Musk
-Lucas
-Bezos
-WB
-Someone else

 

[Cephus]

So, who buys Disney if it goes bankrupt?

-Musk
-Lucas
-Bezos
-WB
-Someone else

Hopefully, the stockholders put a stop to it before that.

 

[HeartBlade]

The online Disney fandom, in general, LOVED that Chapek was fired and Iger was (temporarily) brought back. Chapek is as dry as an Excel spreadsheet and not a creative type... he is a cost cutter, running a huge corporation. And that's fine if you manage Staples or Pepsi. But I don't believe that Chapek could ever be the public face of a mega entertainment company.

But you are right... all these huge investments were Iger's and his alone.

If Disney needs cash, then they could...

1) Sell Lucasfilm and sign a 99 year agreement to use the characters in media and theme parks
2) Sell Marvel and sign a 99 year agreement to use the characters in media and theme parks
3) Sell ESPN and Hulu

At one time, Disney was the BEST overall at family entertainment. And I really think that needs to be their goal. To the detriment of pure profit, Disney needs to re-focus on having the BEST theme parks (in terms of attraction experiences, cleanliness, maintenance, employee payroll, customer service and friendliness), family entertainment on both TV/media and film (maybe a little bit less on the gritty, angsty, social justice warrior type characters). Keep their nose out of ANYTHING that smells political or socially charged (you are free to have your private opinion, but corporately the response is "no comment"), and treat their customers with respect.

Oh definitely. Im not a fan of Chapek even if my previous post came off that way. He has a legacy of cost cutting when he was head of the parks and this reputation was definitely the reason why he was made CEO, so he could make the unpopular decisions of cutting staff and other areas to make the money Iger frivolously spent.

I dont think Chapek is good but also found it silly that fans online cheered when Iger was brought back as CEO after Chapek was ousted, as if Chapek could fix the very problem he created.

"Keep their nose out of ANYTHING that smells political or socially charged (you are free to have your private opinion, but corporately the response is "no comment"), and treat their customers with respect."
Problem is that people working at the Mouse Corp are highly politico-socially engaged into stuff that shouldn't influence any story line or franchises Imagine the number of triggered employees if said Disney goes 180 on certain well- placed-woke-stuff in future films

When did the “wokeness” start at Disney? I agree they have a very political bent which wasnt the case previously iirc (unlike companies like Nike who were “woke” before it was cool) but their political advocacy became very prominent after around Frozen I think. Yeah Disney made movies like Lilo and Stich were a “minority” is the lead but it wasnt harped upon. Maybe it was around Princess and the Frog (although that film wasnt marketed with “diversity” as a tag line either).

 

[blewis17]

"Keep their nose out of ANYTHING that smells political or socially charged (you are free to have your private opinion, but corporately the response is "no comment"), and treat their customers with respect."
Problem is that people working at the Mouse Corp are highly politico-socially engaged into stuff that shouldn't influence any story line or franchises Imagine the number of triggered employees if said Disney goes 180 on certain well- placed-woke-stuff in future films

I hear what you are saying, and It's probably impossible to stay above the fray nowadays.

 

[blewis17]

Oh definitely. Im not a fan of Chapek even if my previous post came off that way. He has a legacy of cost cutting when he was head of the parks and this reputation was definitely the reason why he was made CEO, so he could make the unpopular decisions of cutting staff and other areas to make the money Iger frivolously spent.

I dont think Chapek is good but also found it silly that fans online cheered when Iger was brought back as CEO after Chapek was ousted, as if Chapek could fix the very problem he created.


When did the “wokeness” start at Disney? I agree they have a very political bent which wasnt the case previously iirc (unlike companies like Nike who were “woke” before it was cool) but their political advocacy became very prominent after around Frozen I think. Yeah Disney made movies like Lilo and Stich were a “minority” is the lead but it wasnt harped upon. Maybe it was around Princess and the Frog (although that film wasnt marketed with “diversity” as a tag line either).

I think part of the issue is Disney FORCING the issues. Rather than happen organically, Disney is desperate for the next big thing, the next wave that will bring in quick profits. Disney has become a one trick pony trying to make things "classic" but often coming off as superficial. The "classic" Princess and the Frog, Encanto, and Coco. Really? These Disney/Pixar films are less than 15 years old and have not had time to age. But Disney is currently converting its American parks two Splash Mountain log flume rides into Princess Tianna themed attractions. Disney has released Blue Sky plans for adding Coco and Encanto expansions to its theme parks. Not including DVD or rental/streaming sales numbers:

1) 2009 Princess and the Frog: $271 million box office gross worldwide
2) 2021 Encanto: $256.5 million box office gross worldwide
3) 2018 Coco (Pixar): $814.3 million box office gross worldwide

So the only "winner" here was Coco. But to Disney, Coco and Mexican culture is ALL ABOUT the "Day of the Dead" and is represented as such (even in EPCOT). It would be similar to saying that North American history/culture is solely represented by December 25th.

 

[Lightning]

But Disney is currently converting its American parks two Splash Mountain log flume rides into Princess Tianna themed attractions.

I think that was more that they need to remove the Song of the South theme and Tiana was the logical choice, there already being a New Orleans section in the park.

 

[Cephus]

Now, Disney is facing a possibly $300 million class action lawsuit alleging that they knowingly paid women less than men, based on an internal study that Disney did themselves. Woke and progressive my ass. Just a bunch of hypocrites.

Disney Faces Dramatic Escalation In $150M+ Gender Discrimination & Pay Equity Suit

EXCLUSIVE: Fireworks might be about to go off at the Walt Disney Company this Fourth of July weekend, at least legally. More than four years after Walt Disney Studios staffers LaRonda Rasmussen and Karen Moore first filed a complaint accusing the Mouse House of discriminating against female...

www.yahoo.com

 

[HeartBlade]

I think part of the issue is Disney FORCING the issues. Rather than happen organically, Disney is desperate for the next big thing, the next wave that will bring in quick profits. Disney has become a one trick pony trying to make things "classic" but often coming off as superficial. The "classic" Princess and the Frog, Encanto, and Coco. Really? These Disney/Pixar films are less than 15 years old and have not had time to age. But Disney is currently converting its American parks two Splash Mountain log flume rides into Princess Tianna themed attractions. Disney has released Blue Sky plans for adding Coco and Encanto expansions to its theme parks. Not including DVD or rental/streaming sales numbers:

1) 2009 Princess and the Frog: $271 million box office gross worldwide
2) 2021 Encanto: $256.5 million box office gross worldwide
3) 2018 Coco (Pixar): $814.3 million box office gross worldwide

So the only "winner" here was Coco. But to Disney, Coco and Mexican culture is ALL ABOUT the "Day of the Dead" and is represented as such (even in EPCOT). It would be similar to saying that North American history/culture is solely represented by December 25th.

I think the rush for changing Splash Mountain was more about “modern concerns” with Splash Mountain being based off of Song of the South which has become a notable black mark in Disney history, made worse with the internet propagating it so it is more common knowledge. Princess and the Frog kind of fits without too much of a rework and is decent promotion for one of its more underrated movies.

I dont think 15 years is too bad to call a movie a classic but these movies didnt sell well. At best, they are cult classics (just because a movie wasnt a box office hit doesnt mean its bad. See Dredd). These movies werent exactly classics in terms of quality though imo.

I also think a big issue with Disney is they arnt good at making movies anymore (Im not talking Pixar or Marvel although they have decreased in quality as well). Their last big movie was Frozen which was made by Walt and just kept under weaps for a while. Zootopia and Wreck it Ralph were also good but Disney has more misses than hits now. And its the new IPs/new characters that become new sources of revenue that Disney needs.

 

[blewis17]

I think that was more that they need to remove the Song of the South theme and Tiana was the logical choice, there already being a New Orleans section in the park.

Disney certainly sees this as a way to be more inclusive and diverse in its offerings to guests, which itself is good. But the ride makes no mention or references to the post Civil War era/reconstruction, no references to plantations in the Deep South, and Uncle Remus is nowhere in the attraction. In fact, there are NO humans in the attraction. Having been open since 1989, we have 34 years of virtually no guests complaining that the log flume ride is problematic because its animal characters come from southern folktales that were used to inspire a 1940s Disney film, which depicted freed slaves in the late 1800s United States telling these fables to children. I certainly understand why Disney decided NOT to release the film on streaming or DVD/Blu-ray, but the attraction? It's not even named after the film.

Splash mountain is adjacent to New Orleans Square in Anaheim California, but is part of a separate land called "Critter Country". In my home park in Florida, Splash Mountain is part of Frontierland, next to Big Thunder Mountain Railroad. There is no New Orleans section in Florida, so Tianna's story doesn't really "fit" there. And, Tokyo Disneyland is keeping Splash Mountain "as-is" with no changes, so there's that.

 

[Psab keel]

I enjoyed The Princess and the Frog, Wreck it Ralph, and I LOVED Zootopia. It was hilarious! AND they offered something fresh compared to the endless sequels and reboots.

 

[CT1138]

The online Disney fandom, in general, LOVED that Chapek was fired and Iger was (temporarily) brought back. Chapek is as dry as an Excel spreadsheet and not a creative type... he is a cost cutter, running a huge corporation. And that's fine if you manage Staples or Pepsi. But I don't believe that Chapek could ever be the public face of a mega entertainment company.

The problem with Chapek was he was, exactly as you said, a dry, pencil-pusher running the largest entertainment company in the world. I think what sealed the nail in the coffin for him was the "animation is for children" line, which was 100% antithetical to how Walt ran the company. You couldn't how found a CEO more unalike Walt in managerial skills if you hired a dry erase board. In the entertainment industry, you NEED a person leading with at least some imagination. It's why I don't like Kathleen Kennedy. It has nothing to do with her opinions, and everything to do with the fact that she's just a numbers jockey there to balance budgets and sign checks. She's a glorified accountant there to make sure Disney got their $4B back and then some.

When did the “wokeness” start at Disney? I agree they have a very political bent which wasnt the case previously iirc (unlike companies like Nike who were “woke” before it was cool) but their political advocacy became very prominent after around Frozen I think. Yeah Disney made movies like Lilo and Stich were a “minority” is the lead but it wasnt harped upon. Maybe it was around Princess and the Frog (although that film wasnt marketed with “diversity” as a tag line either).

If I were to hazard a guess, it was sometime after the chain-smoking antisemitic founder keeling over.

But more to the point, with a company like LucasFilm, where your two biggest properties are either "teacher punching Nazis," or "space wizards vs space Nazis" you HAVE to acknowledge the politics inherent to the stories. Lucas knew this. Lucas patterned plenty of the Empire off contemporary conservatives like Nixon and Bush Jr. And when the US president stands at the podium and says "Ay, maybe there's some good Nazis out there too" you better believe that the symbolism in movies will take this and run with it.

Now, Disney is facing a possibly $300 million class action lawsuit alleging that they knowingly paid women less than men, based on an internal study that Disney did themselves. Woke and progressive my ass. Just a bunch of hypocrites.

Disney Faces Dramatic Escalation In $150M+ Gender Discrimination & Pay Equity Suit

EXCLUSIVE: Fireworks might be about to go off at the Walt Disney Company this Fourth of July weekend, at least legally. More than four years after Walt Disney Studios staffers LaRonda Rasmussen and Karen Moore first filed a complaint accusing the Mouse House of discriminating against female...

www.yahoo.com

Of course! Because Disney the multinational conglomerate is a VERY different company from the façade they project of a fuzzy, warm, family movie and theme park company. Disney the global corporation is a ruthless money making machine that can and will cut any expense they can find. They are not "woke." They're not in the business of pleasing audiences, but of pleasing shareholders. They WILL buy your childhood, and you better believe they are going to mine that property like a fat hog. They're going to sell everything and the oink.

I enjoyed The Princess and the Frog, Wreck it Ralph, and I LOVED Zootopia. It was hilarious! AND they offered something fresh compared to the endless sequels and reboots.

Agreed! I thoroughly enjoyed all these movies.

I agree with the sentiment that Disney "forces" to try to make every movie these days a hit. But as I said above, the margins companies keep these days are so razor thin, that's partly to do with stockholders. If the movie doesn't perform the "projected" profits, even if it makes plenty of money, the stockholders get angry. And god help anyone that makes the stockholders angry. Back in the day, guess what: Walt himself had A LOT of failures. Bambi was a box office failure. Pinocchio was a box office failure. Fantasia was a box office failure. All three are beloved Disney classics now. Why? Because of Walt's "keep moving forward" mentality. If something failed, oh well, it failed. They tried again. They kept moving forward. Now, when something is a failure, Disney focuses too much on the fact that it was. Who's fault is it, what went wrong, how did they not see it before... when sometimes a movie just doesn't resonate with an audience right away.

 

[Ron]

The problem with Chapek was he was, exactly as you said, a dry, pencil-pusher running the largest entertainment company in the world. I think what sealed the nail in the coffin for him was the "animation is for children" line, which was 100% antithetical to how Walt ran the company. You couldn't how found a CEO more unalike Walt in managerial skills if you hired a dry erase board. In the entertainment industry, you NEED a person leading with at least some imagination. It's why I don't like Kathleen Kennedy. It has nothing to do with her opinions, and everything to do with the fact that she's just a numbers jockey there to balance budgets and sign checks. She's a glorified accountant there to make sure Disney got their $4B back and then some.

If I were to hazard a guess, it was sometime after the chain-smoking antisemitic founder keeling over.

But more to the point, with a company like LucasFilm, where your two biggest properties are either "teacher punching Nazis," or "space wizards vs space Nazis" you HAVE to acknowledge the politics inherent to the stories. Lucas knew this. Lucas patterned plenty of the Empire off contemporary conservatives like Nixon and Bush Jr. And when the US president stands at the podium and says "Ay, maybe there's some good Nazis out there too" you better believe that the symbolism in movies will take this and run with it.


Of course! Because Disney the multinational conglomerate is a VERY different company from the façade they project of a fuzzy, warm, family movie and theme park company. Disney the global corporation is a ruthless money making machine that can and will cut any expense they can find. They are not "woke." They're not in the business of pleasing audiences, but of pleasing shareholders. They WILL buy your childhood, and you better believe they are going to mine that property like a fat hog. They're going to sell everything and the oink.

Agreed! I thoroughly enjoyed all these movies.

I agree with the sentiment that Disney "forces" to try to make every movie these days a hit. But as I said above, the margins companies keep these days are so razor thin, that's partly to do with stockholders. If the movie doesn't perform the "projected" profits, even if it makes plenty of money, the stockholders get angry. And god help anyone that makes the stockholders angry. Back in the day, guess what: Walt himself had A LOT of failures. Bambi was a box office failure. Pinocchio was a box office failure. Fantasia was a box office failure. All three are beloved Disney classics now. Why? Because of Walt's "keep moving forward" mentality. If something failed, oh well, it failed. They tried again. They kept moving forward. Now, when something is a failure, Disney focuses too much on the fact that it was. Who's fault is it, what went wrong, how did they not see it before... when sometimes a movie just doesn't resonate with an audience right away.

Walt was never antisemitic. That was a rumor started by the card-carrying communist head of the CSU -Herb Sorrell- after he tried to unionize Disney's animators, many of whom were Jewish.

As for a US president saying there were some good Nazis out there, I don't want us to get into politics and taunt the ban hammer but that was a complete misquote by the mainstream media.

 

[Sluis Van Shipyards]

I don't think most people have a problem with social issues or politics (SW kinda needs to address them) in movies overall, it's when the audience is being preached to because the studio believes they're all idiot children whose minds have to be directed in a certain "correct" direction.

 

[Psab keel]

Star Wars is not and never was allegorical. It's the hero's journey in space. Any historical references are used as set dressing and not intended to be directly analogous of any given person, event, or mode of thought. Sure the Empire gets labeled as "Nazi's in space" but the reality is Lucas used the iconography in color pallette and design to symbolize totalitarianism, not necessarily as a commentary on Hitler. We're talking in visual metaphors here too. If the bad guys wear uniforms similar to real world fascists, the audience knows that these characters are evil without giving a single word of exposition. It's shorthand for identifying characters and their allegience. That's not the same thing as allegory, which in this case, would be a commentary about totalitarianism.

If the Empire were supposed to specifically be Nazi's, what was George saying about them other than, they're bad people? That's not allegorical. That's stating the obvious, but also simplistically brilliant because you don't have to say a thing and you've already told me something about these characters JUST by looking at their costumes. That's the reason the costumes alone have become so iconic and universally recognized. You have to have a very clear commentary on an idea for it to be an effective allegory. Star Wars is also interpreted differently by different people around the world. That kind of universal appeal doesn't necessarily translate to worldwide success if the allegory is targeted at one specific idea.

Pilgrim's Progress is an allegory about the Christian life. There's no other way to interpret it. Most allegories are very specific in that way. Star Wars is interpreted in many ways and you'll get very different answers depending on who you ask.

 

[HeartBlade]

Star Wars is not and never was allegorical. It's the hero's journey in space. Any historical references are used as set dressing and not intended to be directly analogous of any given person, event, or mode of thought. Sure the Empire gets labeled as "Nazi's in space" but the reality is Lucas used the iconography in color pallette and design to symbolize totalitarianism, not necessarily as a commentary on Hitler. We're talking in visual metaphors here too. If the bad guys wear uniforms similar to real world fascists, the audience knows that these characters are evil without giving a single word of exposition. It's shorthand for identifying characters and their allegience. That's not the same thing as allegory, which in this case, would be a commentary about totalitarianism.

If the Empire were supposed to specifically be Nazi's, what was George saying about them other than, they're bad people? That's not allegorical. That's stating the obvious, but also simplistically brilliant because you don't have to say a thing and you've already told me something about these characters JUST by looking at their costumes. That's the reason the costumes alone have become so iconic and universally recognized. You have to have a very clear commentary on an idea for it to be an effective allegory. Star Wars is also interpreted differently by different people around the world. That kind of universal appeal doesn't necessarily translate to worldwide success if the allegory is targeted at one specific idea.

Pilgrim's Progress is an allegory about the Christian life. There's no other way to interpret it. Most allegories are very specific in that way. Star Wars is interpreted in many ways and you'll get very different answers depending on who you ask.

Completely agree with this take. I see US audiences declare that the Empire are Nazis because they dress stylishly (at least the commanders do) and the Nazis were the common “bad guys” in WW2 but the Empire is any authoritarian government. Star Wars is simply a story of good versus evil and any “bad guy” can fit the role.

You can just as easily make the argument that Star Wars depicts the Vietnam war with the armored and better funded US military using power to subjugate the “ragtag” Vietcong who were fighting for their own independence. Hell, if anything the Vietnam war works as a better allegory than WW3 given how RotJ ended on a forest moon.

If I were to hazard a guess, it was sometime after the chain-smoking antisemitic founder keeling over.

But more to the point, with a company like LucasFilm, where your two biggest properties are either "teacher punching Nazis," or "space wizards vs space Nazis" you HAVE to acknowledge the politics inherent to the stories. Lucas knew this. Lucas patterned plenty of the Empire off contemporary conservatives like Nixon and Bush Jr. And when the US president stands at the podium and says "Ay, maybe there's some good Nazis out there too" you better believe that the symbolism in movies will take this and run with it.

I wouldnt call either story “political” though, more adventure stories exploring good vs evil. The Empire is a totalitarian government and while the “political” message that totalitarianism/rule through power and force is not good; its not really political.

And even with Indy, while the bad guys are Nazis, they are still generic bad guys and could be replaced by another US enemy (like the Soviets in Crystal Skull). Nazis were the go-to bad guy (like in video games). If we wanted to go political, Indy himself is quite problematic taking ancient relics from other civilizations and putting them in Western museums which has become a point of contention as countries make claims to get their artifacts back.

We dont delve into it because its an adventure story and if Indy doesnt get it, the bad guys do and will do bad things with it.

I don't think most people have a problem with social issues or politics (SW kinda needs to address them) in movies overall, it's when the audience is being preached to because the studio believes they're all idiot children whose minds have to be directed in a certain "correct" direction.

This. This is also coming from one of the most racist and sexist industries alive (all black movies and minority casting movies wont sell so we wont make them, race swapping is fine and prevalent, etc.) for example, when making Hitch, Will Smith wanted Cameron Diaz as the heroine but that wasnt allowed because it “wouldnt sell,” hence why Eva Mendez was cast.

I always see Hollywood as the old racist uncle who voted for Obama one time so now thinks they are super progressive and gets to tell everyone how to live which is rich when their spokespeople also tend to be hypocrites. They do say good things that we need to do (take action against climate change, curb racism, etc.) but their actions nearly always tell a different story.