Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Disney, IP, and “Returns to Marginal Affinity”

matthewball.vc

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 59 posts

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

#31

Post by lotsofpulp »

JohnJamesRambo wrote: post #28
friedman23 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

How can you even say that? I’m dumbfounded. Only in this era of complete erosion of antitrust could this statement be made. Standard Oil would have been awed by this cornering of the market. https://www.titlemax.com/discovery-center/money-finance/comp...

Pretty much all movie/TV content comes out of:

Disney

Comcast

AT&T

Amazon

Apple

Netflix

CBS

Sony

Fox Corp

It’s a get big or get crushed world right now. Of the latter 4, I wonder who Microsoft/Google/Verizon/Facebook will buy.

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

#32

Post by Xelbair »

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…

The new movies are hit or miss.

Rogue one was good, Episode 7 was okayish as a introduction to new arc and characters, Episode 8 was killed by playing it safe - it was such a wasted potential.

We don't talk about Solo. That move does not exist.

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

#33

Post by SuoDuanDao »

autoexec wrote: post #10
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…

> there's no attempts at making something special, they're just the McDonalds of entertainment. They used to be much more experimental as an animation studio but some of those projects didn't do as well. It'd be great if they could alternate between telling "safe" stories and passion projects like Fantasia or even films like Tron but I guess it's hard to pitch something risky when you can get a guaranteed hit by doin…

I wish they'd done a live-action remake of treasure planet, The art direction would really lend itself to Disney's animation capabilities.

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

#34

Post by throwawayacont »

snowwrestler wrote: post #20

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.

Worse, it reads like a love letter to a $264.87 billion company, a company responsible for this:

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act

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

#35

Post by scarface74 »

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…

Well, if “most people you talk to” think it isn’t good and all of the new Star Wars movies (except for Solo) have done well, have you thought that your anecdotal survey of people you know may not be relevant?

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

#36

Post by scarface74 »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #31
JohnJamesRambo wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How can you even say that? I’m dumbfounded. Only in this era of complete erosion of antitrust could this statement be made. Standard Oil would have been awed by this cornering of the market. https://www.titlemax.com/discovery-center/money-finance/comp...

Pretty much all movie/TV content comes out of: Disney Comcast AT&T Amazon Apple Netflix CBS Sony Fox Corp It’s a get big or get crushed world right now. Of the latter 4, I wonder who Microsoft/Google/Verizon/Facebook will buy.

Well, seeing that you actually put Apple in that list shows a skewed perspective.

As far as getting big or getting crushed - both Blumhouse and Tyler Perry Studios make movies that get wide releases with budgets between $5 and $10 million.

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

#37

Post by scarface74 »

habitue wrote: post #23
nabla9 wrote: post #21

I don't think it's about storytelling at all. Star Wars under Disney or Marvel are not examples of good storytelling. What Disney understands is the brand management. Disney brands are valuable because they are familiar, consistent and safe choices. Disney is the stable food producer in the entertainment business. Using Scorsese's non-cinema as a label for what Disney does not necessarily bad. First 3 star Wars Movie…

But the article points out that Disney doing that is exactly why Star Wars performance has been lackluster. They're now taking a step back because apparently the public doesn't want a steady drip of Star Wars same-old-same-old

Star Wars performance “lackluster”? Have you seen the box office returns for them?

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

#38

Post by TheHypnotist »

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…

Considering the last iteration of Star Wars (the prequels), i'd say it's very hard to agree with you.

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

#39

Post by thrower123 »

friedman23 wrote: post #19
thrower123 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They own an astounding chunk of the popular culture. They dominate the list of top-grossing films. There have been times over the past couple years when I couldn't see a movie in my local megaplex that Disney didn't own.

They are apparently also licensing the Nintendo reality-distortion field technology.

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

#40

Post by Game_Ender »

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 think you missed a key section in the article where he talks about how miss-steps with a franchise can build, and that Disney made many miss-steps with Star Wars. He wrote a whole article about it [0], which he claims they:

- rushed the films out

- lacked singular vision to keep them consistent

- subverted audience expectations in a bad way, re Luke Skywalker

- retread too much of the same old ground leading to inability to generate momentum (ie. killing off characters in Rogue One).

0 - https://redef.com/original/star-wars-fatigue-is-a-myth-but-d...

Post reply on HN