9 ms·

Disney's movie dominance has a dark side, independent theatre warns

118 points by cirrus-clouds 8y ago

tomohawk 8y ago
Disney pretty much killed the Star Wars franchise by making "best of" remixes and putting people in charge who seem to be tone deaf and/or actually despise the originals. Several fans I know have sworn off seeing another one after seeing The Last Jedi. It's gotten so bad that even Disney has noticed and they've paused production of future installments. This is exactly the kind of movies you would expect to be created by a vast entertainment conglomerate that is too big to fail. The industry is greatly in need of a shake up.
- swebs 8y ago
  It's especially funny because South Park predicted exactly this in 2012.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- untog 8y ago
  IMO anyone that was going to make a set of Star Wars sequels was doomed to fail. The originals hold such a specific place in people's childhood memories that any resurrection will always be considered sacrilege. I didn't see any of the Star Wars movies until I was in my twenties, and I think the new movies are absolutely fine. Nothing earth shattering, but neither were the originals.
  - krapp 8y ago
    The two arguments I've seen laid against the sequels are either vague rants about "SJW propaganda" or that they're disgracing the originals, especially the characters, by deconstructing and recontextualizing them. And it's unfortunate because what they seem to object to is taking risks with the material. They only want the EU on screen, nothing else. I'm as old as the franchise and I want to see something new done with the universe. Don't pander to the old guard, challenge them and undermine their expectations.
    - maxerickson 8y ago
      I'd rather see something new. It's a big problem with Star Trek. It uses up all the oxygen available for the genre and so we get more Star Trek, even to the point where Spock crosses universes on a regular basis.
      - krapp 8y ago
        The new content seems to be coming from video game franchises and Netflix. Guardians of the Galaxy was a surprise, though, but even that was a rebuild of an existing property.
      - untog 8y ago
        I didn't mind the first season of Discovery, but I'm baffled as to why the movies and new show are set in the "past". At one point there was a pitch for a show set in Trek's future where the Federation is falling apart. That would have been fascinating. Instead we have a show that's using tech that belongs in the distant future, and a movie series that's rehashing old stories. Bah.
        maxerickson 8y ago
        Andromeda was (obviously loosely) based on that pitch.
        gamblor956 8y ago
        One studio (CBS) owns the rights to the televised Star Trek universe, and another (Paramount) to the movie Star Trek universe. But to make it even more complicated, the movie rights trump the TV rights, so elements that were in both (such as TOS and TNG) can't be in any new series without Paramount's permission. Both studios used to be owned by the same company, but they split a few years ago, around the time Enterprise was ending its run on TV. A rumored merger of CBS and Paramount vis-a-vi the Viacom merger would have reunited the rights, but it looks like that is permanently off the table (see the Redstone litigation).
    - Helloworldboy 8y ago
  - greedo 8y ago
    The originals may not have been earth shattering when you first saw them, but when they were first released in '77-'83, they were earth shattering. They demolished box office records and made sci-fi/fantasy a mainstream cinematic success.
  - pbhjpbhj 8y ago
    Wouldn't it be so fantastic if the IP rights had expired/waned and multiple studios could create sequels? Some fan stuff is amazing, to have copyright/trademarks work such that fan produced/inspired movies could be legitimised regardless of the original producers notions ... that would stimulate creation of novel and interesting artistic works IMO. I'd love an EmpireDidNothingWrong movie or two.
dustinmoorenet 8y ago
I don't mean to be glib, but is there a positive side? I mean, I know it is positive to the share holders, but what benefit does Mega-Disney have for the regular person? Regular-Disney got us the 95 year copyright, so the public doesn't need any more Disney power.
- marcell 8y ago
  Well the positive side is lots and lots of people get to enjoy Disney movies. Welcome to capitalism, enjoy your stay :).
  - kartan 8y ago
    > Welcome to capitalism, enjoy your stay :). Copyright is as anti-capitalism as it gets. Copyright in its actual expression is part of corporativism. "Corporatism is the organization of a society by corporate groups and agricultural, labour, military or scientific syndicates and guilds on the basis of their common interests." Copyright was extended to benefit a special interest group. It has nothing to do with improving market efficiency. If any, it damages market efficiency introducing an artificial monopoly enforced by the state. (Fixing Copyright: Is Copyright A Part Of Free Market Capitalism?) https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121204/02422821219/fixing-copyright-is-copyright-part-free-market-capitalism.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121204/02422821219/fixin...
- crooked-v 8y ago
  Well, Disney power did get us not-unequivocably-bad Star Wars sequels, though I think there's an argument to be made there that a megacorporation was only needed for that because megacorporations had pushed the extension of copyright terms so far in the first place.
  - kartan 8y ago
    Your comment is very relevant. Disney kills the possibility of companies and individuals creating stories of the cultural content of their own youth. Do you like "Monkey Island"? Copyright doesn't allow you to create your own content. (And I know that it is also owned by Disney) Children grow with 100-year-old stories not because they are better or more relevant, but because it is the only legacy that they receive. The people that got Pinocchio, Alice in Wonderland, The Wizzard of Oz, and other stories for free are the ones that allowed the next generation to be stolen of that privilege. Copyright is designed so anyone that cares and will pay for content, is long dead before making anything public domain.
ajmurmann 8y ago
As someone who doesn't like the Marvel movies and is losing interest in Star Wars it feels like the are fewer movies for me to enjoy in the cinema than there was even just a year ago. There were times my wife and I went to the cinema twice on one weekend because there was so much stuff we wanted to see. This year we've watched Isle of Dogs. Before that was Three Billboards Outside Ebbing Missouri which was in December. Last summer we had Dunkirk, Babydriver and shortly after the new Blade Runner. This year everything seems dominated by Marvel and SatWars. Even upcoming movies on IMDb look bleak to me.
- 67_45 8y ago
  I saw skyscraper with "the rock" and it was absolutely perfect. It completely blew my low expectations out of the water. Sometimes you really acjt judge a book by its cover
- forapurpose 8y ago
  Via streaming, I can watch most of the best films made at any time in almost any country. At the theater, I can watch the best film, almost always domestic, that happens to be showing at the local theater. The screen is bigger and the sound is better, but the local theater can't compete; almost everything I watch now is streaming. If someone would provide a streaming service that cared about video quality, even basic things like compression artifacts, I'd pay more for it.
- burn_cycle 8y ago
  Spare a thought for those of us in developing countries. I can now watch the latest Marvel or Star Wars blockbuster in 3D as soon as it is available in western markets, but little else. Many of the films you mention never saw the light of day in my neck of the woods and the Disney et al titles seem to stay forever, where I live Infinity War is still being screened.
  - briandear 8y ago
    A lot of that could have to do with film quotas that require cinemas to screen a certain percentage of ‘local’ films, regardless of demand and thus leaves only the most profit-generating American films available. Film quotas, while they sound good, result in essentially the subsidization of sub-par national films since they don’t have to worry about competing with the rest of the world; it essentially lowers the bar because these films don’t have to compete for screen time against so many, often better, foreign films. Note, I am not saying American films are the best, I am just saying that film quotas make it easier for mediocre films to be exhibited because they aren’t competing against a full slate of imports. Look at the current French film industry as an example — pretty much crap except for the occasional standout. Although to be fair, the quota system in Korea actually resulted in a pretty vibrant cinema industry, but that seems to be an exception.
Animats 8y ago
The studios once owned the theaters. That's why you see old "Warner" and "Paramount" theaters in some big cities. That monopoly was broken by an antitrust lawsuit by the Syufy chain, which, among other things, built the domed theaters seen around Silicon Valley. With antitrust enforcement so weak today, Disney could probably buy theaters. They probably wouldn't. The margins are not very good. The Marvel Overextended Universe looks tired. Star [Wars|Gate|Trek] has been done to death. Coming up from Disney: another Winnie the Pooh movie, another Wreck-It Ralph movie, another Mary Poppins movie, another Aladdin movie, another Toy Story Movie, another Avengers movie, another Lion King movie, another Frozen movie... Disney used to have an official Crap Sequels Division called Disneytoons, which cranked out Cinderella 2, Lion King 2, Mulan 2, and other direct to the DVD bargain bin products. Disneytoons was supposedly shut down after the Pixar acquisition, but the Disneytoons sequel mania seems to have taken over the company. They're in a rut in beautiful downtown Burbank.
- imnotlost 8y ago
  Sure but this too shall pass. I think They’ll survive and eventually make great movies again.
  - wodenokoto 8y ago
    But they are making great movies. As well as not-so-good and overly generic movies. And while their sequels aren't the best thing in cinema, they are much better than their old straight-to-vhs sequels.
    - saiya-jin 8y ago
      you don't understand - people come here to brag how they are better than masses who enjoy MCU and other pop movies. its not fashionate to be mainstream and you need to let everybody around you know
    - sametmax 8y ago
      I made the mistake of watching "Aladdin 3". It's incredibly bad, especially compared to the amazing first one. I think they used straight-to-vhs sequels to train their new hires.
skookumchuck 8y ago
Whenever I see a movie synopsis that contains "zombies", "murder", "detective", "race against time", I just move on.
0xcafecafe 8y ago
These days it seems movie making is about taking the least risk. Most if not all the big budget flicks are either fantasy/scifi or reboots of old franchises or superhero movies or a combination of them. There seems to be a lack of a tight script and good storytelling. The last movie which was not a marvel/dino/superhero genre and enticed me to watch in the theatre was "gone girl". I wish we see more of those movies again.
- CompelTechnic 8y ago
  I agree with your point but I also want to point out that if you think about the ratio of money you spend on franchise movies vs. other movies, even the people that like to complain (not accusing you of complaining) are often at fault. I know personally that I see just about every Marvel movie in theaters, but for any no-big-name movie, I wait until I can see it on Netflix or just never see it at all. I cannot complain without being a hypocrite.
  - 0xcafecafe 8y ago
    I see your point (I myself have seen most the marvel movies in the theatre). But I think if the movie is good, people would be willing to go to the theatre to watch. "Get out" is a good recent example.
tvh 8y ago
Maybe movie theatres will become extinct, and Disney will have to funnel their unoriginal, sterile, monotonous, CGI-based movies exclusively through their competitive streaming platform to Netflix, thus allowing people to choose to either watch an independent movie, or a blockbuster, or another type of movie, without forcing business owners to do anything. Despite my love for movie theatres and the feel good sensation they used to provide me in the past, they have moved away from this and the experience has become less enjoyable than an actual home watch. The endless amount of brainwashing commercials prior to the actual movie when going to the theatre is only one of the problems. The lack of choice in movies is another. One can hope that theatres will first become extinct because of streaming platforms coming up, then will get reborn as proper theatre with a renewed purpose of showing movies rather than brainwashing people with commercials, force-feeding them that Deutsche Bank is a great bank for their next mortgage, and having them waste their money on 10 EUR nachos/soda bundles, etc...
greedo 8y ago
Movies have always been bad. Always. Look at how many movies are made in Hollywood each year. Hundreds and hundreds. Maybe 10 each year are worth the time to watch. Maybe 1 will end up having enduring value. The rest just disappear. Tropes get recycled, new genres come and go, are rediscovered, and then fade. Formula has always been important in cranking out the volume of productions. The odds are stacked against any one movie being a success, either critically or financially. Who would have thought that Spielberg would follow up Jurassic Park with such a stinker? The studio system was no ideal world; actors were stuck in their contracts and had horrible bargaining power. Censorship was the norm, writers were not given much leeway. Today's movie industry is far healthier, with more outlets, more customers, and more opportunities. The problem today isn't on the distribution side, but on the production side. Creating a movie is just so expensive. Same problem facing the video game industry. Think you can create a movie for $4M? That's the inflation adjusted budget for American Graffiti. Or Star Wars at $47M. Not a chance. The FX alone would probably cost that. Rogue One was over $200M...
ergothus 8y ago
Utterly ignoring the content of disney/marvel movies for this post...what is the proper response to this problem? Theatres that just elect to follow the requirements lose money if they are small markets. Theaters that refuse the requirements also lose money. Consumers dont get to make the choice, and suffer only variations of the consequences. (I may be annoyed that nothing else is showing, or I may be annoyed that I have to go to another theater to see what I want, but DISNEY isnt likely to be impacted by how my theaters decision impacts me. What is the proper response here? And not just here...if Pepsi and Coke both incentivise exclusive contracts, they aren't the ones to suffer if my favorite restaurant goes with the one I prefer least. Etc.
JakeAl 8y ago
I just want to recommend people read the Alvin Toffler quadrilogy as he described decades ago the changes that would take place due to technology. In The Third Wave he provides a historical context and background for the evolution of technology and it's impact on society; In Future Shock he talks about the growing pains as technology enables the individual to do things the group (government, education, business) could only do before; In Powershift he discusses the shift in power from those at the top to the individual; In Revolutionary Wealth he discusses the new producer-consumer business models. If you look at social media and businesses such as YouTube, Kickstarter and Patreon they are the future, and traditional businesses can only survive by embracing and capitalizing on their value to these new models, or by clinging to the old models as they die off which means Disney buying up as much content as possible as distribution costs drop and channels approach infinity. They are trying to lock up as much popular content as they can for the built in audience and brand because they are a goliath that can't compete with an army of Davids. This has all happened before, all you have to do is look at the history of print, live performances, radio, television, cable, even web portals. It's a predictable cycle of growth and consolidation with an existing system as it spawns new systems independent of but predicated upon the systems that came before it. Marshall McLuhan spoke a lot about such things as well as Neil Postman.

118 points by cirrus-clouds 8y ago

Disney pretty much killed the Star Wars franchise by making "best of" remixes and putting people in charge who seem to be tone deaf and/or actually despise the originals. Several fans I know have sworn off seeing another one after seeing The Last Jedi. It's gotten so bad that even Disney has noticed and they've paused production of future installments. This is exactly the kind of movies you would expect to be created by a vast entertainment conglomerate that is too big to fail. The industry is greatly in need of a shake up.

swebs 8y ago
It's especially funny because South Park predicted exactly this in 2012.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
untog 8y ago
IMO anyone that was going to make a set of Star Wars sequels was doomed to fail. The originals hold such a specific place in people's childhood memories that any resurrection will always be considered sacrilege. I didn't see any of the Star Wars movies until I was in my twenties, and I think the new movies are absolutely fine. Nothing earth shattering, but neither were the originals.
- krapp 8y ago
  The two arguments I've seen laid against the sequels are either vague rants about "SJW propaganda" or that they're disgracing the originals, especially the characters, by deconstructing and recontextualizing them. And it's unfortunate because what they seem to object to is taking risks with the material. They only want the EU on screen, nothing else. I'm as old as the franchise and I want to see something new done with the universe. Don't pander to the old guard, challenge them and undermine their expectations.
  - maxerickson 8y ago
    I'd rather see something new. It's a big problem with Star Trek. It uses up all the oxygen available for the genre and so we get more Star Trek, even to the point where Spock crosses universes on a regular basis.
    - krapp 8y ago
      The new content seems to be coming from video game franchises and Netflix. Guardians of the Galaxy was a surprise, though, but even that was a rebuild of an existing property.
    - untog 8y ago
      I didn't mind the first season of Discovery, but I'm baffled as to why the movies and new show are set in the "past". At one point there was a pitch for a show set in Trek's future where the Federation is falling apart. That would have been fascinating. Instead we have a show that's using tech that belongs in the distant future, and a movie series that's rehashing old stories. Bah.
      - maxerickson 8y ago
        Andromeda was (obviously loosely) based on that pitch.
      - gamblor956 8y ago
        One studio (CBS) owns the rights to the televised Star Trek universe, and another (Paramount) to the movie Star Trek universe. But to make it even more complicated, the movie rights trump the TV rights, so elements that were in both (such as TOS and TNG) can't be in any new series without Paramount's permission. Both studios used to be owned by the same company, but they split a few years ago, around the time Enterprise was ending its run on TV. A rumored merger of CBS and Paramount vis-a-vi the Viacom merger would have reunited the rights, but it looks like that is permanently off the table (see the Redstone litigation).
  - Helloworldboy 8y ago
- greedo 8y ago
  The originals may not have been earth shattering when you first saw them, but when they were first released in '77-'83, they were earth shattering. They demolished box office records and made sci-fi/fantasy a mainstream cinematic success.
- pbhjpbhj 8y ago
  Wouldn't it be so fantastic if the IP rights had expired/waned and multiple studios could create sequels? Some fan stuff is amazing, to have copyright/trademarks work such that fan produced/inspired movies could be legitimised regardless of the original producers notions ... that would stimulate creation of novel and interesting artistic works IMO. I'd love an EmpireDidNothingWrong movie or two.

dustinmoorenet 8y ago

I don't mean to be glib, but is there a positive side? I mean, I know it is positive to the share holders, but what benefit does Mega-Disney have for the regular person? Regular-Disney got us the 95 year copyright, so the public doesn't need any more Disney power.

marcell 8y ago
Well the positive side is lots and lots of people get to enjoy Disney movies. Welcome to capitalism, enjoy your stay :).
- kartan 8y ago
  > Welcome to capitalism, enjoy your stay :). Copyright is as anti-capitalism as it gets. Copyright in its actual expression is part of corporativism. "Corporatism is the organization of a society by corporate groups and agricultural, labour, military or scientific syndicates and guilds on the basis of their common interests." Copyright was extended to benefit a special interest group. It has nothing to do with improving market efficiency. If any, it damages market efficiency introducing an artificial monopoly enforced by the state. (Fixing Copyright: Is Copyright A Part Of Free Market Capitalism?) https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121204/02422821219/fixing-copyright-is-copyright-part-free-market-capitalism.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121204/02422821219/fixin...
crooked-v 8y ago
Well, Disney power did get us not-unequivocably-bad Star Wars sequels, though I think there's an argument to be made there that a megacorporation was only needed for that because megacorporations had pushed the extension of copyright terms so far in the first place.
- kartan 8y ago
  Your comment is very relevant. Disney kills the possibility of companies and individuals creating stories of the cultural content of their own youth. Do you like "Monkey Island"? Copyright doesn't allow you to create your own content. (And I know that it is also owned by Disney) Children grow with 100-year-old stories not because they are better or more relevant, but because it is the only legacy that they receive. The people that got Pinocchio, Alice in Wonderland, The Wizzard of Oz, and other stories for free are the ones that allowed the next generation to be stolen of that privilege. Copyright is designed so anyone that cares and will pay for content, is long dead before making anything public domain.

ajmurmann 8y ago

As someone who doesn't like the Marvel movies and is losing interest in Star Wars it feels like the are fewer movies for me to enjoy in the cinema than there was even just a year ago. There were times my wife and I went to the cinema twice on one weekend because there was so much stuff we wanted to see. This year we've watched Isle of Dogs. Before that was Three Billboards Outside Ebbing Missouri which was in December. Last summer we had Dunkirk, Babydriver and shortly after the new Blade Runner. This year everything seems dominated by Marvel and SatWars. Even upcoming movies on IMDb look bleak to me.

67_45 8y ago
I saw skyscraper with "the rock" and it was absolutely perfect. It completely blew my low expectations out of the water. Sometimes you really acjt judge a book by its cover
forapurpose 8y ago
Via streaming, I can watch most of the best films made at any time in almost any country. At the theater, I can watch the best film, almost always domestic, that happens to be showing at the local theater. The screen is bigger and the sound is better, but the local theater can't compete; almost everything I watch now is streaming. If someone would provide a streaming service that cared about video quality, even basic things like compression artifacts, I'd pay more for it.
burn_cycle 8y ago
Spare a thought for those of us in developing countries. I can now watch the latest Marvel or Star Wars blockbuster in 3D as soon as it is available in western markets, but little else. Many of the films you mention never saw the light of day in my neck of the woods and the Disney et al titles seem to stay forever, where I live Infinity War is still being screened.
- briandear 8y ago
  A lot of that could have to do with film quotas that require cinemas to screen a certain percentage of ‘local’ films, regardless of demand and thus leaves only the most profit-generating American films available. Film quotas, while they sound good, result in essentially the subsidization of sub-par national films since they don’t have to worry about competing with the rest of the world; it essentially lowers the bar because these films don’t have to compete for screen time against so many, often better, foreign films. Note, I am not saying American films are the best, I am just saying that film quotas make it easier for mediocre films to be exhibited because they aren’t competing against a full slate of imports. Look at the current French film industry as an example — pretty much crap except for the occasional standout. Although to be fair, the quota system in Korea actually resulted in a pretty vibrant cinema industry, but that seems to be an exception.

Animats 8y ago

The studios once owned the theaters. That's why you see old "Warner" and "Paramount" theaters in some big cities. That monopoly was broken by an antitrust lawsuit by the Syufy chain, which, among other things, built the domed theaters seen around Silicon Valley. With antitrust enforcement so weak today, Disney could probably buy theaters. They probably wouldn't. The margins are not very good. The Marvel Overextended Universe looks tired. Star [Wars|Gate|Trek] has been done to death. Coming up from Disney: another Winnie the Pooh movie, another Wreck-It Ralph movie, another Mary Poppins movie, another Aladdin movie, another Toy Story Movie, another Avengers movie, another Lion King movie, another Frozen movie... Disney used to have an official Crap Sequels Division called Disneytoons, which cranked out Cinderella 2, Lion King 2, Mulan 2, and other direct to the DVD bargain bin products. Disneytoons was supposedly shut down after the Pixar acquisition, but the Disneytoons sequel mania seems to have taken over the company. They're in a rut in beautiful downtown Burbank.

imnotlost 8y ago
Sure but this too shall pass. I think They’ll survive and eventually make great movies again.
- wodenokoto 8y ago
  But they are making great movies. As well as not-so-good and overly generic movies. And while their sequels aren't the best thing in cinema, they are much better than their old straight-to-vhs sequels.
  - saiya-jin 8y ago
    you don't understand - people come here to brag how they are better than masses who enjoy MCU and other pop movies. its not fashionate to be mainstream and you need to let everybody around you know
  - sametmax 8y ago
    I made the mistake of watching "Aladdin 3". It's incredibly bad, especially compared to the amazing first one. I think they used straight-to-vhs sequels to train their new hires.

skookumchuck 8y ago

Whenever I see a movie synopsis that contains "zombies", "murder", "detective", "race against time", I just move on.

0xcafecafe 8y ago

These days it seems movie making is about taking the least risk. Most if not all the big budget flicks are either fantasy/scifi or reboots of old franchises or superhero movies or a combination of them. There seems to be a lack of a tight script and good storytelling. The last movie which was not a marvel/dino/superhero genre and enticed me to watch in the theatre was "gone girl". I wish we see more of those movies again.

CompelTechnic 8y ago
I agree with your point but I also want to point out that if you think about the ratio of money you spend on franchise movies vs. other movies, even the people that like to complain (not accusing you of complaining) are often at fault. I know personally that I see just about every Marvel movie in theaters, but for any no-big-name movie, I wait until I can see it on Netflix or just never see it at all. I cannot complain without being a hypocrite.
- 0xcafecafe 8y ago
  I see your point (I myself have seen most the marvel movies in the theatre). But I think if the movie is good, people would be willing to go to the theatre to watch. "Get out" is a good recent example.

tvh 8y ago

Maybe movie theatres will become extinct, and Disney will have to funnel their unoriginal, sterile, monotonous, CGI-based movies exclusively through their competitive streaming platform to Netflix, thus allowing people to choose to either watch an independent movie, or a blockbuster, or another type of movie, without forcing business owners to do anything. Despite my love for movie theatres and the feel good sensation they used to provide me in the past, they have moved away from this and the experience has become less enjoyable than an actual home watch. The endless amount of brainwashing commercials prior to the actual movie when going to the theatre is only one of the problems. The lack of choice in movies is another. One can hope that theatres will first become extinct because of streaming platforms coming up, then will get reborn as proper theatre with a renewed purpose of showing movies rather than brainwashing people with commercials, force-feeding them that Deutsche Bank is a great bank for their next mortgage, and having them waste their money on 10 EUR nachos/soda bundles, etc...

greedo 8y ago

Movies have always been bad. Always. Look at how many movies are made in Hollywood each year. Hundreds and hundreds. Maybe 10 each year are worth the time to watch. Maybe 1 will end up having enduring value. The rest just disappear. Tropes get recycled, new genres come and go, are rediscovered, and then fade. Formula has always been important in cranking out the volume of productions. The odds are stacked against any one movie being a success, either critically or financially. Who would have thought that Spielberg would follow up Jurassic Park with such a stinker? The studio system was no ideal world; actors were stuck in their contracts and had horrible bargaining power. Censorship was the norm, writers were not given much leeway. Today's movie industry is far healthier, with more outlets, more customers, and more opportunities. The problem today isn't on the distribution side, but on the production side. Creating a movie is just so expensive. Same problem facing the video game industry. Think you can create a movie for $4M? That's the inflation adjusted budget for American Graffiti. Or Star Wars at $47M. Not a chance. The FX alone would probably cost that. Rogue One was over $200M...

ergothus 8y ago

Utterly ignoring the content of disney/marvel movies for this post...what is the proper response to this problem? Theatres that just elect to follow the requirements lose money if they are small markets. Theaters that refuse the requirements also lose money. Consumers dont get to make the choice, and suffer only variations of the consequences. (I may be annoyed that nothing else is showing, or I may be annoyed that I have to go to another theater to see what I want, but DISNEY isnt likely to be impacted by how my theaters decision impacts me. What is the proper response here? And not just here...if Pepsi and Coke both incentivise exclusive contracts, they aren't the ones to suffer if my favorite restaurant goes with the one I prefer least. Etc.

JakeAl 8y ago

I just want to recommend people read the Alvin Toffler quadrilogy as he described decades ago the changes that would take place due to technology. In The Third Wave he provides a historical context and background for the evolution of technology and it's impact on society; In Future Shock he talks about the growing pains as technology enables the individual to do things the group (government, education, business) could only do before; In Powershift he discusses the shift in power from those at the top to the individual; In Revolutionary Wealth he discusses the new producer-consumer business models. If you look at social media and businesses such as YouTube, Kickstarter and Patreon they are the future, and traditional businesses can only survive by embracing and capitalizing on their value to these new models, or by clinging to the old models as they die off which means Disney buying up as much content as possible as distribution costs drop and channels approach infinity. They are trying to lock up as much popular content as they can for the built in audience and brand because they are a goliath that can't compete with an army of Davids. This has all happened before, all you have to do is look at the history of print, live performances, radio, television, cable, even web portals. It's a predictable cycle of growth and consolidation with an existing system as it spawns new systems independent of but predicated upon the systems that came before it. Marshall McLuhan spoke a lot about such things as well as Neil Postman.