|
Post by Lord Death Man on Dec 14, 2017 18:32:26 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. The world isn't falling apart because Fox decided to sell to Disney. That was their choice, nobody held a gun to their head. If the other studios can't generate interest with their content, they need to take a minute for themselves and set some goals.
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Dec 14, 2017 18:36:26 GMT
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. No, I mean, three of the movies you cited were specifically made as adaptations, which means you don’t get to label them as “original” works. Also, how exactly do you expect other studios to keep pace if Disney is constantly buying things like Marvel, Star Wars, Pixar, and 20th Century Fox, on top of making remakes of Beauty and the Beast, and the freaking Lion King? You realize that it’s ultimately up to the audience to decide what they want to consume, right? Seriously, you go fuck right off. Stop being an abrasive prick just because I’m pointing out something that makes you uncomfortable.
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Dec 14, 2017 18:37:14 GMT
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. The world isn't falling apart because Fox decided to sell to Disney. That was their choice, nobody held a gun to their head. If the other studios can't generate interest with their content, they need to take a minute for themselves and set some goals. I never said the world was falling apart. I said this could be bad for the state of filmmaking. Variety is important.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Dec 14, 2017 18:41:39 GMT
The world isn't falling apart because Fox decided to sell to Disney. That was their choice, nobody held a gun to their head. If the other studios can't generate interest with their content, they need to take a minute for themselves and set some goals. I never said the world was falling apart. I said this could be bad for the state of filmmaking. Variety is important. Fair enough. Variety is important but, it's not a matter of life or death. And before you say you didn't say that either, all of this discussion is a moot point as the deal is done. Unless you've got a petition up your sleeve, we need to accept this and move on.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2017 18:43:58 GMT
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. No, I mean, three of the movies you cited were specifically made as adaptations, which means you don’t get to label them as “original” works. Also, how exactly do you expect other studios to keep pace if Disney is constantly buying things like Marvel, Star Wars, Pixar, and 20th Century Fox, on top of making remakes of Beauty and the Beast, and the freaking Lion King? You realize that it’s ultimately up to the audience to decide what they want to consume, right? Seriously, you go fuck right off. Stop being an abrasive prick just because I’m pointing out something that makes you uncomfortable. Oh, God, you are eye-roll inducing to the nth degree. You want to know the different between "adaptations and remakes" and "original works"? The former two are honest about what they are. "Original works" are complete lies. Its not on me to figure out how to solve their problems for them. I'm not getting paid to come up with their business strategies. People far more knowledgeable about business and cinema have those positions. I do, however, know that if you can't keep in pace with the competition, it means you're not doing a good enough job to do so. No, you go fuck right off. You're not pointing things out that make me uncomfortable. You're bullshitting and full of bias.
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Dec 14, 2017 18:44:00 GMT
I never said the world was falling apart. I said this could be bad for the state of filmmaking. Variety is important. Fair enough. Variety is important but, it's not a matter of life or death. And before you say you didn't say that either, all of this discussion is a moot point as the deal is done. Unless you've got a petition up your sleeve, we need to accept this and move on. I never claimed I planned to somehow stop the deal from happening. I was merely giving my two cents on the deal, and how it could end up negatively affecting the state of the film industry as a whole. Also, I personally don’t like the idea that this deal could end up benefitting Fox News big time.
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Dec 14, 2017 18:51:17 GMT
No, I mean, three of the movies you cited were specifically made as adaptations, which means you don’t get to label them as “original” works. Also, how exactly do you expect other studios to keep pace if Disney is constantly buying things like Marvel, Star Wars, Pixar, and 20th Century Fox, on top of making remakes of Beauty and the Beast, and the freaking Lion King? You realize that it’s ultimately up to the audience to decide what they want to consume, right? Seriously, you go fuck right off. Stop being an abrasive prick just because I’m pointing out something that makes you uncomfortable. Oh, God, you are eye-roll inducing to the nth degree. You want to know the different between "adaptations and remakes" and "original works"? The former two are honest about what they are. "Original works" are complete lies. Its not on me to figure out how to solve their problems for them. I'm not getting paid to come up with their business strategies. People far more knowledgeable about business and cinema have those positions. I do, however, know that if you can't keep in pace with the competition, it means you're not doing a good enough job to do so. No, you go fuck right off. You're not pointing things out that make me uncomfortable. You're bullshitting and full of bias. Hey asshole, if anyone’s full of bias, it’s you. You’re the one who tried to refute my point about Disney’s tendency to rely on pre-existing material by citing films that are specifically classified as adaptations. Also, it becomes tough for other businesses to keep up with the competition if they have significantly fewer resources. You probably aren’t smart enough to realize this, but the people behind these studios aren’t Gods. Finally, what the fuck is your goddamn problem? Every single time we have a debate, it always evolves into you becoming an emotional little brat who feels the need to either insult me, or come up with bullshit black and white arguments like “DURR! YOU HATE MAHVEL!!!” Seriously, if anyone needs to fuck off, its you. I wasn’t tryin to insult you or criticize the things you like. I was merely expressing my personal concerns over the possibility of a monopoly occurring in the entertainment industry. For God fucking sake, I’m starting to regret ever taking you off my ignore list.
|
|
|
Post by ThatGuy on Dec 14, 2017 18:53:01 GMT
So you are saying there is nothing else out there besides the stuff that Fox had? No other money making franchises? None owned by Paramount and WB and Sony? All of them were at Fox? I mean, the last couple Die Hard movies only made between 300-400 million. Or are you just going on recognizable names being a big thing? Let’s look at the other franchises owned by the other studios, shall we? Universal: At this point, they’re the only studio that might be able to somewhat compete with Disney. They have the Fast and Furious movies, Blumhouse, Jurassic Park, Illumination, and Dreamworks. WB: They have Harry Potter and DC, along with a few horror films, and the Monsterverse. None of which are billion dollar franchises. Sony: They still have the distribution rights to Spider-Man, as well as Men in Black and Ghostbusters, but nothing really impressive there. Paramount: Um...there’s the Mission Impossible movies, and I guess Transformers and Star Trek, although neither of those latter two franchises are turning much of a profit for them. Now let’s look at Disney. Disney: They have the Marvel Cinematic Universe, Star Wars, Pixar, the Disney princesses, Pirates of the Caribbean, Blue Sky studios, Planet of the Apes, and Avatar, among several others now. Is is there really any contest at this point? Can you honestly say that there was a contest at all before? I mean Avatar was a one off thing. At least now you can say that Disney has a live action sci-fi Pocahontas series.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2017 18:57:50 GMT
Oh, God, you are eye-roll inducing to the nth degree. You want to know the different between "adaptations and remakes" and "original works"? The former two are honest about what they are. "Original works" are complete lies. Its not on me to figure out how to solve their problems for them. I'm not getting paid to come up with their business strategies. People far more knowledgeable about business and cinema have those positions. I do, however, know that if you can't keep in pace with the competition, it means you're not doing a good enough job to do so. No, you go fuck right off. You're not pointing things out that make me uncomfortable. You're bullshitting and full of bias. Hey asshole, if anyone’s full of bias, it’s you. You’re the one who tried to refute my point about Disney’s tendency to rely on pre-existing material by citing films that are specifically classified as adaptations. Also, it becomes tough for other businesses to keep up with the competition if they have significantly fewer resources. You probably aren’t smart enough to realize this, but the people behind these studios aren’t Gods. Finally, what the fuck is your goddamn problem? Every single time we have a debate, it always evolves into you becoming an emotional little brat who feels the need to either insult me, or come up with bullshit black and white arguments like “DURR! YOU HATE MAHVEL!!!” Seriously, if anyone needs to fuck off, its you. I wasn’t tryin to insult you or criticize the things you like. I was merely expressing my personal concerns over the possibility of a monopoly occurring in the entertainment industry. For God fucking sake, I’m starting to regret ever taking you off my ignore list. No, I didn't. In fact, I never even touched on the point, because its moot because nothing is original. Guess what? Its still not Disney's fault the competition can't keep up. You probably aren't smart enough to realize that. In fact, you outright refuse to consider that the other companies could be doing better. If the other companies can't get their hands on good enough talent to keep up with Disney, that's still their fault. I didn't insult you. I told you off for spouting crap like "Disney doesn't come up with ideas" as if the other companies are any more or less creative. Also, everything has always mostly been adaptations, sequels and remakes. The Complaints that there are too many of all three of those things are nothing new. In fact, you can find identical criticisms to today's cinematic atmosphere in decades old reviews. So yeah, you're the biased one.
|
|
|
Post by ThatGuy on Dec 14, 2017 18:59:09 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. You do know that other studios can buy IPs and make franchises, right? Are you saying that the other studios are so creatively bankrupt that they can't create anything new?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2017 19:02:25 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. You do know that other studios can buy IPs and make franchises, right? Are you saying that the other studios are so creatively bankrupt that they can't create anything new? I've tried pointing out that the other companies could be stepping up their game, but according to him, they can't.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2017 19:02:50 GMT
As a Variety review on Star Wars said: Though the series has always been self-aware enough to crack jokes, it now gives in to the same winking self-parody that is poisoning other franchises of late, from the Marvel movies to “Pirates of the Caribbean.” But it begs the question: If movies can’t take themselves seriously, why should audiences? This is an extremely important point! I'm so sick of these modern movies that constantly wink at their audiences as if theyre made ironically by a bunch of millennial hipsters. It's cheap and obnoxious.
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Dec 14, 2017 19:05:47 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? No, but the seals here are only capable of clapping and barking. That's all they know. Broader contextual and socio-political issues are moot to them because it means they can stuff their faces and watch more shitty drivel -- at increased prices that they'll pay without realizing it was a consequence of this deal.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2017 19:05:51 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. Honestly it's this type of thing that concerns me. I can see a future where franchise name is more important than quality or original content. It seems to be the way the industry is going now... Just make a big expansive franchise out of an old beloved movie and milk it for several decades.
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Dec 14, 2017 19:06:25 GMT
Hey asshole, if anyone’s full of bias, it’s you. You’re the one who tried to refute my point about Disney’s tendency to rely on pre-existing material by citing films that are specifically classified as adaptations. Also, it becomes tough for other businesses to keep up with the competition if they have significantly fewer resources. You probably aren’t smart enough to realize this, but the people behind these studios aren’t Gods. Finally, what the fuck is your goddamn problem? Every single time we have a debate, it always evolves into you becoming an emotional little brat who feels the need to either insult me, or come up with bullshit black and white arguments like “DURR! YOU HATE MAHVEL!!!” Seriously, if anyone needs to fuck off, its you. I wasn’t tryin to insult you or criticize the things you like. I was merely expressing my personal concerns over the possibility of a monopoly occurring in the entertainment industry. For God fucking sake, I’m starting to regret ever taking you off my ignore list. No, I didn't. In fact, I never even touched on the point, because its moot because nothing is original. Guess what? Its still not Disney's fault the competition can't keep up. You probably aren't smart enough to realize that. In fact, you outright refuse to consider that the other companies could be doing better. If the other companies can't get their hands on good enough talent to keep up with Disney, that's still their fault. I didn't insult you. I told you off for spouting crap like "Disney doesn't come up with ideas" as if the other companies are any more or less creative. Also, everything has always mostly been adaptations, sequels and remakes. The Complaints that there are too many of all three of those things are nothing new. In fact, you can find identical criticisms to today's cinematic atmosphere in decades old reviews. So yeah, you're the biased one. I never said anything was Disney’s fault. I said the possibility of them becoming a monopoly rubs me the wrong way. That doesn’t even have to do with the talent the other studios have. It has to do with the amount of resources Disney has, and how insanely powerful they’re becoming as a result of said resources. There comes a point where you can’t blame potential monopolies on “Oh well, the other companies should’ve done better!” Business doesn’t work that way. And yes, you did insult me. You told me to “fuck off”, which is a hostile remark that had no basis behind it. I didn’t say anything to you that would’ve justified such an emotional response, so you’re definitely the one to blame for this argument becoming so heated. All I said was that Disney isn’t really a studio of originality. I don’t care about there being nothing new under the sun, that doesn’t mean Disney isn’t at a severe advantage with their yearly Star Wars movies, among other things. Seriously, I have consistently tried to be respectful with you, but it’s clear that you’re too much of an emotional brat to deserve anyone’s respect. I didn’t make this thread to be bias or to troll, I made it because I felt like expressing my two cents on just how insanely powerful Disney is becoming as a corporation, and how unsettling that is from a capitalistic point of view. If you can’t argue with someone without getting emotional, then you have no business arguing with anyone. Why did you even comment on this thread to begin with?
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Dec 14, 2017 19:07:13 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. You do know that other studios can buy IPs and make franchises, right? Are you saying that the other studios are so creatively bankrupt that they can't create anything new? So how many other studios could’ve afforded to buy Marvel or Star Wars?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2017 19:07:36 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? No, but the seals here are only capable of clapping and barking. That's all they know. Broader contextual and socio-political issues are moot to them because it means they can stuff their faces and watch more shitty drivel -- at increased prices that they'll pay without realizing it was a consequence of this deal. You can make a point without insulting an entire fanbase, you know.
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Dec 14, 2017 19:08:51 GMT
No, but the seals here are only capable of clapping and barking. That's all they know. Broader contextual and socio-political issues are moot to them because it means they can stuff their faces and watch more shitty drivel -- at increased prices that they'll pay without realizing it was a consequence of this deal. You can make a point without insulting an entire fanbase, you know. And you can make a point without telling people to fuck off.
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Dec 14, 2017 19:09:44 GMT
No, but the seals here are only capable of clapping and barking. That's all they know. Broader contextual and socio-political issues are moot to them because it means they can stuff their faces and watch more shitty drivel -- at increased prices that they'll pay without realizing it was a consequence of this deal. You can make a point without insulting an entire fanbase, you know. I thought I just did. That was me being complimentary. "Congrats" on... Disney further ruining Hollywood.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2017 19:13:28 GMT
No, I didn't. In fact, I never even touched on the point, because its moot because nothing is original. Guess what? Its still not Disney's fault the competition can't keep up. You probably aren't smart enough to realize that. In fact, you outright refuse to consider that the other companies could be doing better. If the other companies can't get their hands on good enough talent to keep up with Disney, that's still their fault. I didn't insult you. I told you off for spouting crap like "Disney doesn't come up with ideas" as if the other companies are any more or less creative. Also, everything has always mostly been adaptations, sequels and remakes. The Complaints that there are too many of all three of those things are nothing new. In fact, you can find identical criticisms to today's cinematic atmosphere in decades old reviews. So yeah, you're the biased one. I never said anything was Disney’s fault. I said the possibility of them becoming a monopoly rubs me the wrong way. That doesn’t even have to do with the talent the other studios have. It has to do with the amount of resources Disney has, and how insanely powerful they’re becoming as a result of said resources. There comes a point where you can’t blame potential monopolies on “Oh well, the other companies should’ve done better!” Business doesn’t work that way. And yes, you did insult me. You told me to “fuck off”, which is a hostile remark that had no basis behind it. I didn’t say anything to you that would’ve justified such an emotional response, so you’re definitely the one to blame for this argument bogeying so heated. All I said was that Disney isn’t really a studio of originality. I don’t care about there being nothing new under the sun, that doesn’t mean Disney isn’t at a severe advantage with their yearly Star Wars movies, among other things. Seriously, I have consistently tried to be respectful with you, but it’s clear that you’re too much of an emotional brat to deserve anyone’s respect. I didn’t make this thread to be bias or to troll, I made it because I felt like expressing my two cents on just how insanely powerful Disney is becoming as a corporation, and how unsettling that is from a capitalistic point of view. If you can’t argue with someone without getting emotional, then you have no business arguing with anyone. Why did you even comment on this thread to begin with? On the first paragraph: fair enough. But I will always maintain that the other companies could have stepped up their game. I said "fuck off" because your comment about Disney not coming up with ideas was bullshit to the extreme. And none of the companies are a studio of originality, either. I have no idea why you even started arguing about originality when I never said anything about the topic to begin with. I was never trying to say any of them were original. You got the idea that I was on your own. Like I care if I have your respect.
|
|