Disney, IP, and “Returns to Marginal Affinity” • Hacker News Board

Re: Disney, IP, and “Returns to Marginal Affinity”

#11

Post by thrower123 » Thu, Nov 14, 2019, 1:23 AM UTC

danShumway wrote: post #7

skokage wrote: post #4

I disagree with this article that this is all about their ability to "tell stories", as much as management that's really good at identifying which company to acquire next so they can squeeze every last cent from consumers for whichever IP they are pushing at the time. Most people I've talked to DON'T believe the star wars series has gotten better from a story telling perspective, as this article proposes. I don't thi…

> I respect their ability to make a ton of money, but I don't like a majority of what they create anymore, nor how they treat a majority of their employees. That's a really good summation of my views on Disney. It's obvious they know how to build consistently polished stories that will be consistently enjoyable to a wide audience. I respect that. But it's not clear to me that's a goal worth pursuing, or that the arti…

The insidious thing is that Disney is making an increasing share of all the things, too.

I don't understand why they were allowed to buy 20th Century Fox.

Re: Disney, IP, and “Returns to Marginal Affinity”

#12

Post by paulddraper » Thu, Nov 14, 2019, 1:24 AM UTC

skokage wrote: post #4

I disagree with this article that this is all about their ability to "tell stories", as much as management that's really good at identifying which company to acquire next so they can squeeze every last cent from consumers for whichever IP they are pushing at the time. Most people I've talked to DON'T believe the star wars series has gotten better from a story telling perspective, as this article proposes. I don't thi…

> star wars series

Ouch. Good point. Even The Last Jedi trainwreck (RT 44% audience score, record $150M drop after first weekend) STILL made the top 20 all-time grossing films (ignoring inflation).

But nerdy stuff is cool, remakes are cool, rebels are cool...it's got fundamentally popular qualities. Put that into a good marketing engine, check the boxes and you've got a money maker.

Re: Disney, IP, and “Returns to Marginal Affinity”

#13

Post by JeremySecond » Thu, Nov 14, 2019, 1:40 AM UTC

danShumway wrote: post #7

skokage wrote: post #4

I disagree with this article that this is all about their ability to "tell stories", as much as management that's really good at identifying which company to acquire next so they can squeeze every last cent from consumers for whichever IP they are pushing at the time. Most people I've talked to DON'T believe the star wars series has gotten better from a story telling perspective, as this article proposes. I don't thi…

> I respect their ability to make a ton of money, but I don't like a majority of what they create anymore, nor how they treat a majority of their employees. That's a really good summation of my views on Disney. It's obvious they know how to build consistently polished stories that will be consistently enjoyable to a wide audience. I respect that. But it's not clear to me that's a goal worth pursuing, or that the arti…

> they're made of plastic instead of flesh

Just the words I was looking for.

Re: Disney, IP, and “Returns to Marginal Affinity”

#14

Post by mcphage » Thu, Nov 14, 2019, 2:41 AM UTC

Sendotsh wrote: post #8

skokage wrote: post #4

I disagree with this article that this is all about their ability to "tell stories", as much as management that's really good at identifying which company to acquire next so they can squeeze every last cent from consumers for whichever IP they are pushing at the time. Most people I've talked to DON'T believe the star wars series has gotten better from a story telling perspective, as this article proposes. I don't thi…

I'm a SW fan, have been my entire life. Not one of the fans that go super-deep into lore and nit-picking every aspect of every movie and debating it all (although I do respect that level of fan too, and think they create some interesting discussions/content), but I've watched every movie a few times, read a heap of the books, play all the games, collect the Lego, etc etc. I think that Disney is doing to SW what they…

> I think that Disney is doing to SW what they do to everything... they make it appeal to the maximum possible audience for the maximum possible profit. There's no deep desire to create amazing stories, there's no attempts at making something special, they're just the McDonalds of entertainment. The stuff they make is "good". You'll still pay for it, and enjoy it, but you'll always end up feeling like they could've done better.

For Star Wars, at least, that's a pretty solid step up. I paid for Episodes 1-3, but didn't particularly enjoy them. Episodes 7 & 8 at least left me feeling good about what I just watched, and I quite liked Rogue One (I didn't see it in the theater, though).

Re: Disney, IP, and “Returns to Marginal Affinity”

#15

Post by awl130 » Thu, Nov 14, 2019, 2:53 AM UTC

Author fails to establish a solid correlation (let alone causal relationship) between "storytelling" and affinity. Furthermore, author fails to prove that Disney is better at storytelling than its competitors. He could have first defined "storytelling" and then provided data-driven proof that Disney focuses more on it than its competitors. This is simple enough to do by running such a definition on content (he could use conformity to a three act structure and run it on all movie scripts in the past 20 years, for example). Otherwise we are left with the tautology that Disney content performs better than others because people like it more ("affinity").

Re: Disney, IP, and “Returns to Marginal Affinity”

#16

Post by tamalpais » Thu, Nov 14, 2019, 5:05 AM UTC

I have so much respect for Disney and Bob Iger in particular. But something feels lacking about a single company controlling all the best-loved stories in a culture. It’s like a monopoly on sentiment.

Until the last 100 years or so it’s been the case that a given culture’s stories — folklores, mythologies, and religions — were in the public domain. And while they were at times subject to tight control, e.g., non-vernacular liturgies, they were more typically “owned” by everyone.

I don’t mean this as a criticism of copyright. I support copyright and how it incentivizes cultural creation. But I wonder about whether there’s space for more stories we all own, that can be interpreted by everyone, and, most importantly, that create the same powerful feelings of attachment Disney is so good at creating.

Re: Disney, IP, and “Returns to Marginal Affinity”

#17

Post by gamblor956 » Thu, Nov 14, 2019, 5:10 AM UTC

tamalpais wrote: post #16

I have so much respect for Disney and Bob Iger in particular. But something feels lacking about a single company controlling all the best-loved stories in a culture. It’s like a monopoly on sentiment. Until the last 100 years or so it’s been the case that a given culture’s stories — folklores, mythologies, and religions — were in the public domain. And while they were at times subject to tight control, e.g., non-vern…

There are multiple movies of all the stories that the Disney classic animated films are based on. Most of them are not made by Disney... Indeed, at least 3 of them are produced or distributed by Netflix.

Copyright doesn't stop people from making movies about folk tales. The cost of making a movie and the generally low returns do.

Re: Disney, IP, and “Returns to Marginal Affinity”

#18

Post by xeromal » Thu, Nov 14, 2019, 5:49 AM UTC

mcphage wrote: post #14

Sendotsh wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a SW fan, have been my entire life. Not one of the fans that go super-deep into lore and nit-picking every aspect of every movie and debating it all (although I do respect that level of fan too, and think they create some interesting discussions/content), but I've watched every movie a few times, read a heap of the books, play all the games, collect the Lego, etc etc. I think that Disney is doing to SW what they…

> I think that Disney is doing to SW what they do to everything... they make it appeal to the maximum possible audience for the maximum possible profit. There's no deep desire to create amazing stories, there's no attempts at making something special, they're just the McDonalds of entertainment. The stuff they make is "good". You'll still pay for it, and enjoy it, but you'll always end up feeling like they could've d…

I have the same feelings as you. I LOVED Rogue One though. It definitely brought out the child in me.

Side not, smuggler's run did the same thing. I triggered my inner child.

Re: Disney, IP, and “Returns to Marginal Affinity”

#19

Post by friedman23 » Thu, Nov 14, 2019, 5:55 AM UTC

thrower123 wrote: post #11

danShumway wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I respect their ability to make a ton of money, but I don't like a majority of what they create anymore, nor how they treat a majority of their employees. That's a really good summation of my views on Disney. It's obvious they know how to build consistently polished stories that will be consistently enjoyable to a wide audience. I respect that. But it's not clear to me that's a goal worth pursuing, or that the arti…

The insidious thing is that Disney is making an increasing share of all the things, too. I don't understand why they were allowed to buy 20th Century Fox.

Because when you objectively analyze it, they don't have anything close to a monopoly on content.

Re: Disney, IP, and “Returns to Marginal Affinity”

#20

Post by snowwrestler » Thu, Nov 14, 2019, 6:02 AM UTC

This article seems like a long and pseudo-technical way of saying that Disney makes a lot of money because they make products that a lot of people like.