161–170 of 301 posts
It means they bought LucasArts too. Not that LucasArts were great in the last decade or so but Disney sucks as a "parent" for game dev companies (RIP Blackrock).
On the other hand, a pixar-enhanced reboot of DOTT ... now you're talking ...
Maybe now we'll see a BluRay version of ANH where Han shoots first...
Further watching: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1325014/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've been really disappointed that the expanded universe hasn't been explored more. There is so much more to Star Wars than just the stories surrounding Luke and Anakin as the protagonist. I have fond memories of reading some of the expanded universe books as a kid and I'm disappointed that none of them have gotten attention as potential future movies.
> I have fond memories of reading some of the expanded universe books as a kid Yeah, I did too. Piece of advice: don't go back and reread them. They're awful. At least the ones by Kevin J. Anderson.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Really? tectonic made all those arguments in one sentence, huh? Or did you just invent that? Every American sits and stares passively at ABC television for about 6 hours per week, every week. It's totally silly to suggest that that could have any effect on culture though, right?
Yes, I think it's pretty silly to suggest that the average 6 hours of ABC television consumption is providing Disney with much control over our culture. ABC is led by the culture, not the other way around; that's why it (sort of) makes money for Disney. Think about it with an analogy. Google is more valuable than Facebook, despite the huge amount of time people spend engaged with Facebook, because Google's users come…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The relevant point is that Sony was not a distribution platform/network, and Apple is. And ESPN is mission critical for all cable platforms, so Dis ~by proxy, if not outright.
I don't follow. Sony is not a distribution platform, ok. Apple is, ok. ESPN is mission critical for all cable platforms, ok. Dis by proxy, ok. None of these statements are false but none of them lead me to think Apple wants to own any of these content businesses. If Apple was going to buy any content company it's pretty obvious that they would have bought Pixar. Instead Steve sold Pixar to Disney. Now you're telling…
You're too focused on Apple, and not focused on the companies defending their positions against Apple. The big threats to Hollywood are: (1) Hulu; (2) Netflix; (3) Apple.
Valuation: (1) $1-2B (2) $10B (3) $6-700B > Notice the orders of magnitude.
Strategy: (1) Hulu - kill by benign neglect (this is done) (2) Netflix - starve of tier 1 content (this is done) (3) Apple - keep them out of the game (this is in process)
Right now, Apple themselves are more focused on SV (google, fb). But Apple has the ability to do things (1) and (2) cannot do, due to size ($100B cash?).
Thus, strategies to kill (1) and (2) don't work (against apple). The best way to 'win' is to never let them into the game.
Hollywood/RIAA will use a combination of vertical-integration, regional oligopoly, and legislation to protect their cash-cow businesses, just common sense.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would you be comfortable if Murdoch managed to get his hands on this cultural keiretsu?
I would not care, because Fox News is already much more influential than Disney is, and would not become that much more so simply by dint of owning some cartoon characters.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Google controls the Internet"? I use a lot of non-Google owned web sites and services. Can you support this assertion?
Most users of the Internet are dependent on Google to find anything on the Internet.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google doesn't teach your kids the narrative structure against which they measure their own lives.
(a) Neither does Disney, (b) Google controls the Internet, which is scarier.