Disney Not Getting The "Wish" For Which It Was Hoping

Disney has released yet another bomb at the box office: it's latest film "Wish." The story is supposed to be the origin story of the wishing star that made its appearance in Pinocchio.

After "wishing upon a star" the Blue Fairy appeared to grant Geppetto’s wish for a son (source)

The movie was also supposed to be a return to Disney's classic themes, look and feel, in order to commemorate the company's 100 year anniversary, using 2-D animated backgrounds to give it a more classic look. 

    But the movie has bombed with audiences. Costing a purported $200 million to make, the film only grossed $8.3 million on its opening day and is only expected to bring in $32 to $33 million over the full 5 day period of the long Thanksgiving weekend (down from a revised $37 million projected just a couple days ago), both for less than the $55 to $60 million anticipated immediately before its release.

    Since I haven't seen the film, I will have to rely on Wikipedia for the basic story and plot:

King Magnifico and his wife Queen Amaya establish the kingdom of Rosas on an island in the Mediterranean Sea. Having studied sorcery, Magnifico is able to grant the greatest desires of his subjects, who each give up the memory of their wishes to be sealed and protected by the king until he can grant them. Once in a month, as a ceremonial event, Magnifico chooses one wish to be granted.

The movie's heroine is Asha, a bi-racial (of course) "adorkable" girl who is interviewing to become Magnifico's apprentice in the hope of convincing him to grant her grandfather's wish. But when Magnifico refuses, Asha realizes he is taking people's wishes but never granting them and unsuccessfully tries to convince others around her of his deception. 

    ... Distraught, she makes her own wish on a star. To her surprise, the star descends from the sky in a form of an anthropomorphic ball of light, which Asha names Star. Star's magic gives the forest animals, including Asha's pet goat Valentino, the ability to talk, prompting Asha to enlist Star's help in retrieving her family's wishes. Star's presence is sensed by everyone in the kingdom, and Magnifico feels threatened by it. Despite Amaya's pleas, he turns to forbidden magic to maintain his position of power as his subjects begin to doubt his way of ruling.

    Asha retrieves Sabino's wish and he is overjoyed to be able to remember it, but Magnifico arrives to arrest them.... Corrupted by the dark magic, Magnifico intends to use Star's magic and Rosas' wishes to increase his own powers.... One of Asha's friends, Simon, is revealed to be the one who sold Asha out to Magnifico in hopes of his wish to become a knight will be granted. ...

Asha is able to rally other friends to her cause. But Magnifico uses his magic to darken the sky so the people can't wish upon their own stars. "Remembering that the forest animals told her all living beings come from stardust, Asha encourages the citizens to make a wish about changing Rosas' future. The strength of their collective desire overpowers Magnifico, trapping him in his staff, and the citizens reobtain their sealed wishes with a newfound appreciation of pursuing them." 

    At the end of the story, "Star gifts Asha with a magic wand so that she can continue inspiring people to keep dreaming before returning to the sky among the other stars."

Asha who becomes the new wish granting fairy.

    So there are several theories about why the film is bombing. There are, of course, the rather obvious issues of "anti-racism" in the film: Magnifico is white. Asha and her loyal friends are all apparently POC. Asha's friend that betrays her is white. And Asha is obviously meant as a race-swap of the original Blue Fairy in Pinocchio. 

    Then there are the politics. As one author has noted, Magnifico is quite obviously based on a twisted liberal view of Donald Trump. Another author points out the film's anti-Christian messages. John Nolte, at Breitbart, blames Disney's grooming tactics: "Disney is no longer wholesome entertainment for small children. Decent parents understand this and will not expose their kids to the cinematic equivalent of a guy with no pants circling an elementary school in his Free Candy Van."

    Others blame the lack of originality in the film, particularly using the same "adorkable" heroine who is socially awkward but still brilliant and basically a copy of the same character that has appeared in its more recent "princess" films like Encanto, Frozen, Moana, and Tangled. 

    I doubt, however, that any of the foregoing concerns the people that normally flock to see Disney princess films. It probably is just a horrible story and not worth the inflated costs of going to see a movie in a theater. Rotten Tomato's critic score is only 50% as of the time of this writing (which is better than the initial reviews) while, even using its algorithms to weed out people that disliked the film, the audience score is only 83%. Since the same people that would go see it in a theater probably also subscribe to Disney+, they can just wait it out and see it when it is released on the streaming service.

    One would hope that at some point Disney would lose so much money from being "woke" that they would have to change their ways. But according to their most recent SEC filings, that does not appear to be the case. Rather, they are warning investors:

Generally, our revenues and profitability are adversely impacted when our entertainment offerings and products, as well as our methods to make our offerings and products available to consumers, do not achieve sufficient consumer acceptance. Further, consumers’ perceptions of our position on matters of public interest, including our efforts to achieve certain of our environmental and social goals, often differ widely and present risks to our reputation and brands.

Read the whole thing.

    It is interesting to wonder about Disney's decision to deliberately pursue a policy that even it admits reduces company revenues. Is it just because the company is wholly controlled by leftists? Is it because, like many companies, Disney is beholden to BlackRock (which manages $9.3 trillion) and its liberal Jewish, China friendly CEO, Larry Fink, who has decided to force Western companies to follow DEI policies or risk being cut off by BlackRock and the financial institutions over which he exerts his influence?