|
Post by thisguy4000 on Dec 14, 2017 17:35:34 GMT
I get that people here are happy about Marvel regaining the rights to all their characters (although the Fantastic Four might be a question mark right now: link), but can we consider the implications of this for a moment? Disney now owns Blue Sky Studios, The Simpsons, Family Guy, Die Hard, Bob’s Burgers, Alien, Planet of the Apes, and Avatar. They pretty much own more than half of the big franchises in Hollywood now. Is that really not concerning to anyone? Is getting back the X-Men and maybe the Fantastic Four really worth it if Disney is just going to monopolize all of Hollywood? What might those be? Disney monopolizing the entertainment industry is a big one.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Dec 14, 2017 17:37:48 GMT
I get that people here are happy about Marvel regaining the rights to all their characters (although the Fantastic Four might be a question mark right now: link), but can we consider the implications of this for a moment? Disney now owns Blue Sky Studios, The Simpsons, Family Guy, Die Hard, Bob’s Burgers, Alien, Planet of the Apes, and Avatar. They pretty much own more than half of the big franchises in Hollywood now. Is that really not concerning to anyone? Is getting back the X-Men and maybe the Fantastic Four really worth it if Disney is just going to monopolize all of Hollywood? What might those be? I guess he's worried about the future of Die Hard? Because that franchise needs to continue?
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Dec 14, 2017 17:38:51 GMT
Disney monopolizing the entertainment industry is a big one. Don't you think you're overreacting? Make a list of properties Disney doesn't own. I'll wait.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2017 17:39:07 GMT
The Alien franchise is the one franchise that's really close to my heart, despite it being a bumpy ride since 'Aliens'. Is it possible that Disney could reboot it and actually bring this franchise back? A Weyland-Yutani movie universe would be a dream come true.
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Dec 14, 2017 17:40:33 GMT
Disney monopolizing the entertainment industry is a big one. Don't you think you're overreacting? Make a list of properties Disney doesn't own. I'll wait. No, I’m not overreacting. According to this article, Disney could own as much as 39% of the studio market share as a result of this deal. That’s huge.
|
|
|
Post by kuatorises on Dec 14, 2017 17:47:02 GMT
Disney monopolizing the entertainment industry is a big one. Are we talking about movies here or healthcare, government, etc.? Nobody's life is being ruined and not to mention it's not even a monopoly. There are plenty of production companies that have nothing to do with Disney. Go find a real cause to champion.
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Dec 14, 2017 17:49:48 GMT
Disney monopolizing the entertainment industry is a big one. Are we talking about movies here or healthcare, government, etc.? Nobody's life is being ruined and not to mention it's not even a monopoly. There are plenty of production companies that have nothing to do with Disney. Go find a real cause to champion. link
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Dec 14, 2017 17:52:50 GMT
Don't you think you're overreacting? Make a list of properties Disney doesn't own. I'll wait. No, I’m not overreacting. According to this article, Disney could own as much as 39% of the studio market share as a result of this deal. That’s huge. Huge for who? As I said in another thread today, how many movies these days are remakes, sequels or adaptations? There isn't a ton of creativity in Hollywood regardless of who owns what. This changes nothing beyond the interconnectivity of characters owned by Marvel. You won't notice any tonal shift in the rest of the properties you mentioned.
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Dec 14, 2017 17:57:31 GMT
No, I’m not overreacting. According to this article, Disney could own as much as 39% of the studio market share as a result of this deal. That’s huge. Huge for who? As I said in another thread today, how many movies these days are remakes, sequels or adaptations? There isn't a ton of creativity in Hollywood regardless of who owns what. This changes nothing beyond the interconnectivity of characters owned by Marvel. You won't notice any tonal shift in the rest of the properties you mentioned. We live in a capitalistic society, and in this kind of society, competition is important for business. If a single studio owns 39% of the revenue in any particular business, that becomes bad for business. It’s that simple. You say it’s no big deal, but this could have some larger implications on the state of film and television as a whole. There’s a reason we have antitrust laws, you know.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Dec 14, 2017 18:01:42 GMT
Huge for who? As I said in another thread today, how many movies these days are remakes, sequels or adaptations? There isn't a ton of creativity in Hollywood regardless of who owns what. This changes nothing beyond the interconnectivity of characters owned by Marvel. You won't notice any tonal shift in the rest of the properties you mentioned. We live in a capitalistic society, and in this kind of society, competition is important for business. If a single studio owns 39% of the revenue in any particular business, that becomes bad for business. It’s that simple. You say it’s no big deal, but this could have some larger implications on the state of film and television as a whole. There’s a reason we have antitrust laws, you know. Shit, I'm starting to see your point. What if Agents of SHIELD is on all night, every night, on every channel. Ok, now I'm ready to join your revolution.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2017 18:03:09 GMT
Huge for who? As I said in another thread today, how many movies these days are remakes, sequels or adaptations? There isn't a ton of creativity in Hollywood regardless of who owns what. This changes nothing beyond the interconnectivity of characters owned by Marvel. You won't notice any tonal shift in the rest of the properties you mentioned. We live in a capitalistic society, and in this kind of society, competition is important for business. If a single studio owns 39% of the revenue in any particular business, that becomes bad for business. It’s that simple. You say it’s no big deal, but this could have some larger implications on the state of film and television as a whole. There’s a reason we have antitrust laws, you know. And I still maintain that its other companies' fault for allowing Disney to outclass them so much. Had they just gotten good and stayed in pace with the rising power of Disney, they wouldn't be down to sharing 61% of the leftover revenue. Its not Disney's fault the competition couldn't keep up with them.
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Dec 14, 2017 18:09:07 GMT
We live in a capitalistic society, and in this kind of society, competition is important for business. If a single studio owns 39% of the revenue in any particular business, that becomes bad for business. It’s that simple. You say it’s no big deal, but this could have some larger implications on the state of film and television as a whole. There’s a reason we have antitrust laws, you know. And I still maintain that its other companies' fault for allowing Disney to outclass them so much. Had they just gotten good and stayed in pace with the rising power of Disney, they wouldn't be down to sharing 61% of the leftover revenue. Its not Disney's fault the competition couldn't keep up with them. The competition can’t control what the general public chooses to pay for. Going to the movies in general is expensive for many people, which means there’s a limit to the number of movies they will watch. Why pay money to watch a Harry Potter movie with no Harry Potter characters, when you can pay money to watch a Star Wars movie on a yearly basis?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2017 18:12:05 GMT
And I still maintain that its other companies' fault for allowing Disney to outclass them so much. Had they just gotten good and stayed in pace with the rising power of Disney, they wouldn't be down to sharing 61% of the leftover revenue. Its not Disney's fault the competition couldn't keep up with them. The competition can’t control what the general public chooses to pay for. Going to the movies in general is expensive for many people, which means there’s a limit to the number of movies they will watch. Why pay money to watch a Harry Potter movie with no Harry Potter characters, when you can pay money to watch a Star Wars movie on a yearly basis? So you admit the other companies are unable to come up with ideas that are as appealing as the ones Disney has. See. That's their fault. They have billions to burn on market research and yet can't come up with any ideas that can compete with The Mouse. That's not on Disney. That's on them.
|
|
|
Post by kuatorises on Dec 14, 2017 18:12:28 GMT
We live in a capitalistic society, and in this kind of society, competition is important for business. If a single studio owns 39% of the revenue in any particular business, that becomes bad for business. It’s that simple. You say it’s no big deal, but this could have some larger implications on the state of film and television as a whole. There’s a reason we have antitrust laws, you know. Shit, I'm starting to see your point. What if Agents of SHIELD is on all night, every night, on every channel. Ok, now I'm ready to join your revolution. It's like Hydra has been operating under our noses the entire time and we've been cheering them on.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Dec 14, 2017 18:13:26 GMT
We live in a capitalistic society, and in this kind of society, competition is important for business. If a single studio owns 39% of the revenue in any particular business, that becomes bad for business. It’s that simple. You say it’s no big deal, but this could have some larger implications on the state of film and television as a whole. There’s a reason we have antitrust laws, you know. And I still maintain that its other companies' fault for allowing Disney to outclass them so much. Had they just gotten good and stayed in pace with the rising power of Disney, they wouldn't be down to sharing 61% of the leftover revenue. Its not Disney's fault the competition couldn't keep up with them. I'm inclined to agree but, Bob Iger's strategy for staying ahead is to buy whatever people seem to like. He is an acquisition machine. Entertainment isn't such a vital commodity that I'm going to lose sleep over this. If Disney bought Fox Media, I'd be more concerned. If you're all that worried about having a truly competitive landscape for movies and tv shows, you're probably consuming too much of both.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2017 18:16:40 GMT
And I still maintain that its other companies' fault for allowing Disney to outclass them so much. Had they just gotten good and stayed in pace with the rising power of Disney, they wouldn't be down to sharing 61% of the leftover revenue. Its not Disney's fault the competition couldn't keep up with them. I'm inclined to agree but, Bob Iger's strategy for staying ahead is to buy whatever people seem to like. He is an acquisition machine. Entertainment isn't such a vital commodity that I'm going to lose sleep over this. If Disney bought Fox Media, I'd be more concerned. If you're all that worried about having a truly competitive landscape for movies and tv shows, you're probably consuming too much of both. And its the other guy's decision to sell. Lucas didn't have to sell Lucasfilms. Paramount didn't have to let go of their deal with Marvel Studios so easily. And Fox chose to sell their film and tv stuff.
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Dec 14, 2017 18:18:22 GMT
The competition can’t control what the general public chooses to pay for. Going to the movies in general is expensive for many people, which means there’s a limit to the number of movies they will watch. Why pay money to watch a Harry Potter movie with no Harry Potter characters, when you can pay money to watch a Star Wars movie on a yearly basis? So you admit the other companies are unable to come up with ideas that are as appealing as the ones Disney has. See. That's their fault. They have billions to burn on market research and yet can't come up with any ideas that can compete with The Mouse. That's not on Disney. That's on them. Disney doesn’t actually come up with ideas. Nearly all of their films are sequels and remakes these days. The problem is that the properties they have are more appealing than the properties the other studios have. Saying that the other studios are at fault for not being able to keep up with a studio that buys everything is pretty unfair.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2017 18:21:40 GMT
So you admit the other companies are unable to come up with ideas that are as appealing as the ones Disney has. See. That's their fault. They have billions to burn on market research and yet can't come up with any ideas that can compete with The Mouse. That's not on Disney. That's on them. Disney doesn’t actually come up with ideas. Nearly all of their films are sequels and remakes these days. The problem is that the properties they have are more appealing than the properties the other studios have. Saying that the other studios are at fault for not being able to keep up with a studio that buys everything is pretty unfair. Disney DOES come up with ideas. Tangled? Wreck-It Ralph? Frozen? Big Hero 6? Zootopia? Moana? Coco? They still have their yearly animated new films that they do. And sequels ARE an idea to come up with. So yes, they do come up with quite a few ideas. You can fuck right off with that nonsense. No, its completely fair. If the other companies can't put their billions together to figure out how to compete, that's their fault.
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Dec 14, 2017 18:25:00 GMT
Disney doesn’t actually come up with ideas. Nearly all of their films are sequels and remakes these days. The problem is that the properties they have are more appealing than the properties the other studios have. Saying that the other studios are at fault for not being able to keep up with a studio that buys everything is pretty unfair. Disney DOES come up with ideas. Tangled? Wreck-It Ralph? Frozen? Big Hero 6? Zootopia? Moana? Coco? They still have their yearly animated new films that they do. And sequels ARE an idea to come up with. So yes, they do come up with quite a few ideas. You can fuck right off with that nonsense. No, its completely fair. If the other companies can't put their billions together to figure out how to compete, that's their fault. You do know that in the case of Tangled, Frozen (which is getting a sequel), and Big Hero 6, those are based on pre-existing material, right? Also, tone down the damn emotions. Stop being so abrasive just because I pointed out that your precious little empire isn’t the shining beacon of originality that you think they are. I’m not saying Disney is a bad company, I’m just pointing out that they’re at an unfair advantage, considering the number of properties that they buy, as opposed to coming up with original material. If you have a problem with that, then tough shit.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2017 18:30:52 GMT
Disney DOES come up with ideas. Tangled? Wreck-It Ralph? Frozen? Big Hero 6? Zootopia? Moana? Coco? They still have their yearly animated new films that they do. And sequels ARE an idea to come up with. So yes, they do come up with quite a few ideas. You can fuck right off with that nonsense. No, its completely fair. If the other companies can't put their billions together to figure out how to compete, that's their fault. You do know that in the case of Tangled, Frozen (which is getting a sequel), and Big Hero 6, those are based on pre-existing material, right? Also, tone down the damn emotions. Stop being so abrasive just because I pointed out that your precious little empire isn’t the shining beacon of originality that you think they are. I’m not saying Disney is a bad company, I’m just pointing out that they’re at an unfair advantage, considering the number of properties that they buy, as opposed to coming up with original material. If you have a problem with that, then tough shit. Everything is based on preexisting material. Absolutely everything. Movies came into existence WAY too late in the game of storytelling to ever be able to tell original stories. Nothing under the sun is new. You don't get to use that against Disney when it applies to every other storyteller, ever, as well. And even if the case of adaptations like Tangled and Frozen, filmmakers still have to change quite a bit to make them work as films. So yes, quite a bit of idea making goes into adaptations, too. So again, you can fuck right off. I never they were a shining beacon of originality nor did I ever imply they were. If Disney has an unfair advantage, then its the fault of the other companies for failing to figure out how to keep in pace with them. They were easily on equal ground with them for years, and if they let this one company outdo them and then failed to adjust their strategies to catch up and keep in pace, that's their fault.
|
|