[HN Gopher] Disney Invites Applications for 2022 Disney Accelera...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Disney Invites Applications for 2022 Disney Accelerator Program
        
       Author : frostmatthew
       Score  : 26 points
       Date   : 2022-04-22 19:45 UTC (3 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (thewaltdisneycompany.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (thewaltdisneycompany.com)
        
       | programmarchy wrote:
       | One company this worked out really well for was Sphero. Their
       | robot toy had been on the market a couple years, and they joined
       | the accelerator right before the new Star Wars movie came out
       | with the BB-8, which was a match made in heaven. So if your
       | product could benefit from licensing deals, then the Disney
       | accelerator could be helpful for making those connections.
        
       | alkjlk3rglg wrote:
        
       | madrox wrote:
       | As someone with some knowledge of the accelerator, I'd describe
       | it as a preferred partner program. I'd only recommend it to
       | series B or beyond. The kinds of mentorship you'll get won't be
       | very relevant to a startup. You won't learn about building
       | companies and you won't gain much of a professional network to
       | raise or sell to, but you'll get meetings with any part of Disney
       | you want to pitch to for a partnership. For the right company
       | that can be huge, like Sphero building BB-8. I'm unfamiliar with
       | their terms.
        
       | protomyth wrote:
       | I still cannot help but think they have a deep mistrust of
       | software given their digital efforts other than Pixar. Letting EA
       | do it versus continuing Lucas Arts doesn't seem to be isolated.
        
         | madrox wrote:
         | Disney has struggled to make software part of its DNA, but
         | they've made great strides. As legacy companies go, they've
         | done it better and faster than most.
         | 
         | Gaming is a whole other thing. After Disney Infinity, they
         | embarked on a policy of licensing IP instead of publishing or
         | developing games. Games are a hits-driven business, and Disney
         | Interactive wasn't profitable. Licensing and partnership is
         | more consistent revenue.
        
       | joemazerino wrote:
       | Turn on dead comments if you want a good chuckle.
       | 
       | I wasn't aware Epic games was a part of Disney's accelerator
       | program. How does it compare to YCom?
        
         | madrox wrote:
         | They're very different. YC is for companies in the idea or pre-
         | PMF stage and want help building a business. This is more for
         | established companies that are looking for creative partnership
         | opportunities. Epic was hardly a young company when they did
         | it, and the outcome was mostly to sell UE to Disney in exchange
         | for equity.
        
       | DiabloD3 wrote:
       | Man, the dead comments here are wild.
       | 
       | Are there people who believe Disney is somehow pro-LGBT? They're
       | a corporation: they're anti-LGBT and pro-money; the only time
       | they seem to be pro-LGBT is when they think there is a monetary
       | advantage to seem that way.
       | 
       | The _only_ reason Disney is against the Florida  "Don't Say Gay"
       | bill is because this might cost them a fraction of a percent of
       | their revenue. Note: they cut anything that can be misconstrued
       | as gay-friendly content entirely for anti-LGBT foreign markets,
       | such as China.
       | 
       | Disney does _not_ care about you, or anyone else. They care about
       | money. They are an entertainment company, and the largest one in
       | the world, and they want to turn your money into their money as
       | efficiently and quickly as possible; no matter if you are LGBT or
       | not, your money is still green.
       | 
       | They are not, however, pedophiles, nor do they support some sort
       | of pedophile agenda. Anyone who claims to believe that doth
       | protest too much.
        
         | bfz wrote:
         | > Are there people who believe Disney is somehow pro-LGBT?
         | They're a corporation: they're anti-LGBT and pro-money; the
         | only time they seem to be pro-LGBT is when they think there is
         | a monetary advantage to seem that way.
         | 
         | Worth watching the attached video:
         | https://nypost.com/2022/03/30/disney-producer-cops-to-adding...
         | 
         | Sure it's a corporation, but it's also made out of people.
        
           | monocasa wrote:
           | That article is making Raveneau out to be some exec, but
           | really she's not an executive producer like they claim, and
           | is basically just a director of four episodes of a direct to
           | streaming series that hasn't even finished it's first season
           | yet.
           | 
           | A series that Disney also goes out of it's way not to play in
           | markets that aren't already LGBT friendly.
        
       | cloutchaser wrote:
        
         | outside1234 wrote:
         | Turn off Fox News dude. Just insane that people come here with
         | comments like that.
        
           | smallmouth wrote:
           | I think his comment was completely rational; likely accurate
           | even. What I do think is that it was insane that he posted it
           | here.
        
             | JaimeThompson wrote:
             | The bill bans the discussions of sexuality, correct? If
             | accurate, which I believe it is, then a teacher changed
             | their name because they got married, say a man taking his
             | wife's/husband's last name or a woman taking her
             | husband's/wife's last name then telling their students
             | something about their sexuality in the vast majority of
             | cases would it not?
        
           | literallyWTF wrote:
           | Literally parroting /pol/ talking points that guy was
        
           | alkjlk3rglg wrote:
        
           | SQueeeeeL wrote:
           | I'm assuming the original comment was about Disney having
           | extremely liberal content?
        
             | krapp wrote:
             | No, it was implying that Disney's pro LGBT stance and
             | opposition to Florida's "Don't Say Gay" bill was tantamount
             | to support for pedophilia. This is part of the Republican
             | Party's general strategy to gain support for anti-LGBT
             | legislation by fabricating a moral panic about pedophile
             | "groomers" with the Democratic Party and LGBT community, in
             | particular where support for trans rights is concerned.
             | 
             | https://www.salon.com/2022/04/11/the-goal-of-the-gops-
             | qanon-...
             | 
             | https://www.insider.com/grooming-pedophile-disney-
             | baseless-b...
        
               | version_five wrote:
               | > This is part of the Republican Party's general strategy
               | ...
               | 
               | Why is it ok for the left to promote conspiracy theories
               | about Republicans? You and the Qanon guy in the thread,
               | there are throwing out baseless stuff that if it were
               | from your opponents you would dismiss as conspiracy.
               | Personally, I don't agree with (or really even understand
               | the basis for) the "grooming" stuff I've seen on far
               | right outlets, I think that's garbage. But I certainly
               | don't believe there is some Republican conspiracy going
               | on, it's just some low brow media outlets, and no doubt
               | politicians, trying to get attention. It's not party
               | doctrine, and its not some conspiracy
        
               | krapp wrote:
               | > it's just some low brow media outlets, and no doubt
               | politicians, trying to get attention. It's not party
               | doctrine, and its not some conspiracy
               | 
               | No, it really isn't. The Republican Party has been
               | captured by the far right and this sort of thing has
               | become party doctrine. If you're not willing to trust the
               | sources I've posted, you can find plenty of others, with
               | plenty of corroborating quotes from Republicans. Or feel
               | free to present evidence to the contrary.
        
               | monocasa wrote:
               | I'm not sure how you can separate politicians and party
               | doctrine.
               | 
               | Particularly when the press secretary for the governor
               | who signed this bill is calling everyone who opposes the
               | bill a grooomer: https://twitter.com/ChristinaPushaw/stat
               | us/14998907196910510...
        
               | SQueeeeeL wrote:
               | Oh, that would do it. Yeah, you can tell anyone who's
               | into insulting Disney definitely gets their opinions from
               | news media, it's pretty obvious they've become this weeks
               | punching bag.
        
               | ThunderSizzle wrote:
               | Well, that's because talking about sex without parents
               | consent to young kids in a secretive manner is grooming
               | until 5 seconds ago.
        
               | ineedasername wrote:
               | I'm not sure why you are focusing on sex itself. It is
               | not mentioned at all in the text of HB 1557.
               | 
               | There is a difference between gender identity, sexual
               | orientation, and actual sex acts. You seem to be
               | referring to sex acts. I have yet to see an example of
               | Florida school content for K-3 that actually discusses
               | sex acts, much less in a way that could ever be
               | interpreted as grooming.
               | 
               | Does this bill prohibit using a book or story in a second
               | grade class if it features a child with two fathers? It's
               | unclear. If it does, wouldn't it also prohibit stories
               | with a mother & father? They would equally broach the
               | subject of sexual & gender identity.
        
               | kadoban wrote:
               | It's also about integrating the Qanon idiocy into the
               | Republican agenda.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2022-04-22 23:02 UTC)