Disney to Acquire Lucasfilm Ltd. • Hacker News Board

Re: Disney to Acquire Lucasfilm Ltd.

#231

Post by nitrogen » Wed, Oct 31, 2012, 1:16 AM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #173

nitrogen wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you underestimate the effect of repeated subtle messaging thrown into an otherwise innocuous storyline. If it wasn't effective, Coca Cola wouldn't have paid to have their product barely visible in the background of a scene in War of the Worlds, for example.

I don't estimate it highly, you're right about that. For your specific example, consider some other factors besides the intrinsic effectiveness of ambient product placement: (a) Coca Cola employs many thousands of marketing people who must, to justify their salary, come up with venues to feature the Coke brand. (b) Mass marketing is notoriously terrible with metrics, so it's not an extraordinary claim to suggest that…

[This is also in response to your reply to my other comment] I can tell you that some of the television I watched as a kid had a very strong influence on my deepest subconscious philosophies, namely Star Trek TNG.

My biggest argument against media consolidation, though, is that I simply don't trust any one entity with significant centralized power. While Disney+Lucasfilm is probably a pretty good fit for business and entertainment reasons, the sheer size of the various conglomerates is astounding.

And don't think for a minute that there isn't blatant propaganda in some TV shows, even if the propaganda isn't coherent within a single media conglomerate. The example I found most bothersome was the justly canceled TV series "V", which had extremely overt xenophobic allusions to issues of the day, like illegal immigration and foreign policy.

Re: Disney to Acquire Lucasfilm Ltd.

#232

Post by nitrogen » Wed, Oct 31, 2012, 1:19 AM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #181

nitrogen wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Children are much more accepting of the philosophies implied by what they watch.

All I can tell you is that as a parent, I'm not seeing a lot of cultural signifiers I can trace back to Disney properties. Internet memes have a much greater impact on my middle schooler kids.

This is just my gut reaction, so treat it with the skepticism it deserves, but I don't think Disney's influence is necessarily visible in behavior. I think it's more likely to be a subtle adjustment to the unconscious Bayesian priors invoked in decision making.

Re: Disney to Acquire Lucasfilm Ltd.

#233

Post by ryen » Wed, Oct 31, 2012, 1:21 AM UTC

robbiet480 wrote: post #2

Star Wars Episode 7 will come out in 2015. They also acquired all of the assets including Indiana Jones, Star Wars, ILM, LucasArts and Skywalker Sound

This is the most interesting part of the whole press release.

I wonder if it will follow the book "Star Wars: The Truce at Bakura", which takes place immediately after Episode 6. http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/The_Truce_at_Bakura

Re: Disney to Acquire Lucasfilm Ltd.

#234

Post by bcks » Wed, Oct 31, 2012, 1:26 AM UTC

Rise of the Planet of the Binks

Re: Disney to Acquire Lucasfilm Ltd.

#235

Post by Zenst » Wed, Oct 31, 2012, 1:28 AM UTC

msprague wrote: post #213

Zenst wrote: post #211

I would of thought more people on this planet know more about star wars than they do facebook. Yet Facebook valued at 100bn (initialy) and Lucasfilm valued at 4bn and like many people the response was thats low. Lets look at it another way - do a google search for star wars and then facebook and notice the number of results: star wars: About 420,000,000 results (0.21 seconds) facebook: About 20,570,000,000 results (0…

Since when does popularity substantially determine share valuation?

Supply and demand and fashion have there cross overs. RIM share price has certainly been influenced by public opinion, depite some good sales/figures at times that counter the drops. Self forfilling prophecy that one.

Facebook being another classic, share price based more upon popularity. New startups all the time get snapped up on initial fashion popularity. Nothing is clear cut, should be but it is not. If some stars suddendly endorse a product does it make the product better, may help sales may not but the share price will rise before those sales based upon expectations. So in many ways popularity be it directly or indirectly effects all share price valuations, markets are so volatile by being so twitch dynamicly fast that it is more a direct factor upon share price than it was in years past.

Re: Disney to Acquire Lucasfilm Ltd.

#236

Post by 001sky » Wed, Oct 31, 2012, 1:29 AM UTC

Steko wrote: post #217

001sky wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't follow 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 i…

"strategies to kill (1) and (2) ..." Hollywood doesn't want to kill Hulu (which it owns) or Netflix any more than it wants to kill Wal-Mart or theater chains. The current threats to Hollywood profits are The Pirate Bay and YouTube and to a lesser extent RedBox. Netflix was briefly in a very favorable contract regime but that didn't last very long at all. "The best way to 'win' is to never let them into the game." Thi…

Hulu is worth $1-2B, maybe. Its a sacrificial lamb. To each individual shareholder, its a fraction of this "value". But Hulu is near "value-less" without its rights deals (see: failed IPO). [1]

As for the rest, I think you mis-understand the logic.

The Hollywood's strategy doesn't hinge on Apple's beliefs. In the same way that the strategy in Chess of Black may be pursued absent White understanding it.

The greatest battles won, are those never fought

(to paraphrase Sun Tzu)

It used to be said tha Steve Jobs knew what a consumer wanted before he ever imagined it. It did not matter to Jobs if the consumer was unawares of the virtues of his future products. He built them anyway.

Similarly, when trying purchase financial assets, it is best to do your buying when the rest of the market does not understand your strategy. That keeps the price down, competition at bay, and the liquidity high.

Common sense says: this why hedge funds are secretive.

__________

[1] Don't think for a moment that this is not fully understood, by the owners.

Re: Disney to Acquire Lucasfilm Ltd.

#237

Post by taligent » Wed, Oct 31, 2012, 1:33 AM UTC

pooriaazimi wrote: post #209

bonzoesc wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Steve Jobs wasn't ever really a "creative force" at Disney.

So true, but somehow a lot of people don't know it. He was just a facilitator at Pixar. A damn good facilitator , one who made it all happen, but still he wasn't Pixar's visionary (like he was Apple's). Lasseter deserves all the credit for that part.

Actually you're wrong on that part. Steve was the visionary.

He was the one who saw Pixar as being a brand (i.e. a modern day Disney) rather than just an anonymous studio. Kids are buying and trusting the Pixar brand not the Disney brand. So to be able to set that all up (e.g. equal billing) required a vision for what the company could be.

Steve was responsible for Pixar. John was responsible for Pixar's movies.

Re: Disney to Acquire Lucasfilm Ltd.

#238

Post by aik » Wed, Oct 31, 2012, 1:38 AM UTC

FireBeyond wrote: post #224

edgesrazor wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably the wrong choice of words. He did help bring in a lot of creative people, however. I'm just wondering if this will follow the same line of thinking - there's quite a lot of talented people who work for the Lucas properties.

Do you think so? To my mind, the set of people in that industry, as creatives, who would think "Hmm, I dunno. I'm not really sold / excited about the idea of working for Disney / Pixar / Lucasfilm... Oh, Steve Jobs is involved? That changes ... everything." (sorry, couldn't resist). These companies appear, at least to me, as the pinnacle of "career as a creative artist in film" employers - I doubt the personality of…

Just one example of how he may have indirectly lured more talent than it may seem possible:

Jobs was the main driver of the creation of the innovative-layout of the Pixar HQ building. Lassater himself said that he truly believed that the way the building was structured led to better collaboration and creativity -- ie. a better environment, which would drive more people.

It's not that people think, "Jobs is involved -- yay!" Rather it's the culture that Jobs helped create and helped nurture that people would find attractive. Many, many other leaders with different priorities would likely end up inadvertently squashing the open collaboration and creativity that made Pixar successful to begin with, rather than nurture it, preventing success and preventing new talent from choosing Pixar.

Re: Disney to Acquire Lucasfilm Ltd.

#239

Post by joezydeco » Wed, Oct 31, 2012, 1:43 AM UTC

taligent wrote: post #237

pooriaazimi wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So true, but somehow a lot of people don't know it. He was just a facilitator at Pixar. A damn good facilitator , one who made it all happen, but still he wasn't Pixar's visionary (like he was Apple's). Lasseter deserves all the credit for that part.

Actually you're wrong on that part. Steve was the visionary. He was the one who saw Pixar as being a brand (i.e. a modern day Disney) rather than just an anonymous studio. Kids are buying and trusting the Pixar brand not the Disney brand. So to be able to set that all up (e.g. equal billing) required a vision for what the company could be. Steve was responsible for Pixar. John was responsible for Pixar's movies.

Um, didn't the real history go slightly differently?

Steve Jobs invested in Pixar because of the hardware. When that didn't fly, the shorts and commercials being done by Lasseter (that paid the bills) turned into a gamble to make a full-length movie. This whole "branding" thing didn't come until the first movie was a success.

Re: Disney to Acquire Lucasfilm Ltd.

#240

Post by taligent » Wed, Oct 31, 2012, 1:43 AM UTC

philwelch wrote: post #122

enraged_camel wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

News Corp, owned by Rupert Murdoch. Koch Industries, owned by Koch brothers. I could go on...

News Corp owns Fox News, which is stridently right-wing, but also the Fox network, which broadcasts more left-leaning shows like The Simpsons, Family Guy, and American Dad. In fact, Fox's prime time cartoons regularly mock Fox News. Koch isn't a media company. Try again.

For someone saying "try again" you are awfully ignorant of News Corp and its business which is promoting a right-wing agenda worldwide.

It owns News Limited, News International which are dominate right-wing newspapers/websites in Australia and UK respectively. Foxtel and BSkyB which are the PayTV equivalent in Australia and UK. Wall Street Journal and Fox News which is influential in the US. It has also its hands in tonnes of other media assets:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_Corporation

Fox Studios is nothing but a tiny sideshow.