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

51–59 of 59 posts

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

#51

Post by danShumway »

scarface74 wrote: post #37
habitue wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Lackluster compared to Disney's expectations.

I think it's somewhat absurd too, but part of the point being made in the conversation around this article is that Disney isn't taking risks or making decisions based on creative output -- they're very, very aggressively following market trends. Their first Star Wars release was one of their highest grossing films in something like a decade, but one bad showing from Solo and suddenly Disney is cutting back on yearly releases.

They want movies that are safe and predictable. They want to know before they even start production not just that the film will break even, but that it will make a LOT of money. Clearly based on their own statements, they don't feel that confident about a yearly Star Wars release.

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

#52

Post by scarface74 »

danShumway wrote: post #51
scarface74 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Lackluster compared to Disney's expectations. I think it's somewhat absurd too, but part of the point being made in the conversation around this article is that Disney isn't taking risks or making decisions based on creative output -- they're very, very aggressively following market trends. Their first Star Wars release was one of their highest grossing films in something like a decade, but one bad showing from Solo…

$1.333 Billion for the Last Jedi was below expectations and $2.08 billion was “below expectations”?

They made two non trilogy movies. Rogue One was highly rated by both critics and the audience - Solo not so much.

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

#53

Post by pnutjam »

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…

I've noticed both Disney and Nick do this. Whatever they produce will always do ok because of their marketing muscle. They target children who are not jaded yet and parents either tolerate it or don't notice. I suspect most don't notice until their more experienced parents and by that time most parents are done with small children. I have 6 kids so this has become more noticeable to me.

They cartoons and shows my oldest 18 year old watched are totally differnt from the ones my 8 year and my 4 year old watch. They churn through things quickly and market things very slickly. For example, they produce something for 14 year olds, that most parents think is ok for 12-14 year old kids, but most of those kids aren't really that interested in. Then they drop the marketing into their 8-10 year old programs and boom, it's a hit for them.

These companies, especially Disney, are very insidious and clearly manipulating young minds. We should be disturbed, but I find very little buy in from other adults.

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

#54

Post by lotsofpulp »

scarface74 wrote: post #50
lotsofpulp wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, there will probably be roles for small companies serving smaller demographics, but I meant to point out the weakening position of standalone media companies. The power is in the hands of the owners of the infrastructure, except for Disney who I think has an exceptional ownership of desirable content. Apple I put on there because they can afford to burn so many dollars, it puts them in league with Comcast and ATT…

The media companies don’t “own” the infrastructure. Anyone who can get the money can buy the equipment, hire the people and make a movie. Tyler Perry Studios and Blumhouse or proof. You don’t even need to put your movie in theaters. There are plenty of streaming services looking for exclusive content. Barring that, you can sell your movie yourself over the internet or through any of the video on demand services. You…

I wasn’t clear, but I was writing from the perspective of an investor. No one is stopping anyone from making content, but for purposes of investing, I’m claiming that what used to be many media companies available to invest in, are down to a few, and they will need help from a different business line to stay afloat.

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

#55

Post by danShumway »

scarface74 wrote: post #52
danShumway wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lackluster compared to Disney's expectations. I think it's somewhat absurd too, but part of the point being made in the conversation around this article is that Disney isn't taking risks or making decisions based on creative output -- they're very, very aggressively following market trends. Their first Star Wars release was one of their highest grossing films in something like a decade, but one bad showing from Solo…

$1.333 Billion for the Last Jedi was below expectations and $2.08 billion was “below expectations”? They made two non trilogy movies. Rogue One was highly rated by both critics and the audience - Solo not so much.

Don't argue with me, argue with the Disney executives who decided to pull the brakes on their yearly release schedule.

Disney has different expectations. If anything, the fact that Disney can look past three high-grossing films and only see the one flop is strong evidence for what people are talking about here. Disney is risk averse, and they look at a 75% success rate as risky.

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

#56

Post by scarface74 »

danShumway wrote: post #55
scarface74 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

$1.333 Billion for the Last Jedi was below expectations and $2.08 billion was “below expectations”? They made two non trilogy movies. Rogue One was highly rated by both critics and the audience - Solo not so much.

Don't argue with me, argue with the Disney executives who decided to pull the brakes on their yearly release schedule. Disney has different expectations. If anything, the fact that Disney can look past three high-grossing films and only see the one flop is strong evidence for what people are talking about here. Disney is risk averse, and they look at a 75% success rate as risky.

They pull the breaks on their offshoots that’s true. But, one bad release out of 5 isn’t indicative of any trend.

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

#57

Post by ethbro »

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…

The absence of competition reinforces conservatism.

Bluth leaving Disney was the best thing to happen to them.

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

#58

Post by ethbro »

mcphage wrote: post #45
Xelbair wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Episode 8 was killed by playing it safe - it was such a wasted potential. I get that, although I'll be honest—a bit part of what I liked about 8 Ep. 8 was that it killed off all of the dumb hanging threads from Ep. 7. Episodes 4-6 had huge surprises, but they mostly came out of nowhere, not with giant neon signs pointing at them "GEE DON'T YOU WONDER WHO REY'S PARENTS ARE IT'S A HUGE MYSTERY!". Episode 8 just threw…

Disney's genius, more than anything else, has always been an oscillation between kid-comprehensible and parent-intriguing. In the same work.

You can see it in the details of their animated films, presumably where the workers were given a bit more artistic license.

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

#59

Post by Xelbair »

mcphage wrote: post #45
Xelbair wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Episode 8 was killed by playing it safe - it was such a wasted potential. I get that, although I'll be honest—a bit part of what I liked about 8 Ep. 8 was that it killed off all of the dumb hanging threads from Ep. 7. Episodes 4-6 had huge surprises, but they mostly came out of nowhere, not with giant neon signs pointing at them "GEE DON'T YOU WONDER WHO REY'S PARENTS ARE IT'S A HUGE MYSTERY!". Episode 8 just threw…

The scene i think is the most wasted was the death of Snoke.

There are myriad ways to go forward in interesting directions(Kylo and Rey could go both dark jedi, gray jedi, swap sides(i think that it will come to that) or even go for a 3rd way, or even destroy the concept of jedi itself) yet they basically returned to status quo.

It also felt like it was heavily edited - like there were two drafts, and someone mashed them together.

Post reply on HN