7 ms·

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 regula

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.
- pferde 8y ago
  My opinion is that Disney got us rather simplistic and formulaic fan fiction sequels with overblown visual effects, while treading all over the real thing (the SW Expanded Universe). While the stories from the EU were of varying quality, at least they were interesting. These Disney sequels are so predictable and uninteresting it's not even funny. Fortunately, each of us gets to pick their own canon. For me, it will always be books by Timothy Zahn, and Disney can't do anything at all to the physical copies that I have on my shelf.
  - scarface74 8y ago
    I have mixed feelings about the Last Jedi, but it definitely wasn’t predictable.
    - pferde 8y ago
      Maybe not in the individual plot elements, but the entire movie felt like they were checking off items from a list, and that they were fully aware that the movie is merely a fuel for the merchandise money machine . It was more or less just as naive and fairytale-y as the old Episode 4, and had exactly the right elements to make children go "ooooh" and "aaaaah" (and to pester their parents to buy them toys), and adults cringe. Which by itself is fine, I guess, but there wasn't any depth in it beyond the effects' wow factor.
  - johnchristopher 8y ago
    > For me, it will always be books by Timothy Zahn, and Disney can't do anything at all to the physical copies that I have on my shelf. Until a little green man call a lightning bolt on it ;).
- megaman22 8y ago
  I'm not sure that some Jar-Jar-less sequels and some decent spinoff movies is worth deep-sixing thirty years of Lucas-approved world-building.
zachm0 8y ago
Of course I can’t back this up with any proof, but it might lead to some good content. I have a hard time seeing something like the Marvel Cinematic Universe happening if it wasn’t for Disney being as big as it is. It’s possible that Disney is the only reason Star Wars is back too. If they ever get around to making their own streaming service, having all the Disney properties in one would be amazing. Of course you could argue that these don’t outweigh the downsides of Disney having so much control but I think there some good aspects too it.
- BLKNSLVR 8y ago
  Good content isn't the issue. "Not only do we have to play it for four weeks straight, we have to play it four times a day," said Roper, adding that with only one screen available, it would be "very difficult" to play a single movie for a month without losing money due to lack of audience. Sounds to me like the kind of business practices that is getting Google sued by the EU, and despite their necessarily being different rules for monopoly, the above is a case of applying blanket rules for a 50-screen cinema complex as for a single-screen independent cinema because Disney doesn't need to zoom in to that level of detail. Fine lines. The law is an ass. Similar situation for a Disney-exclusive streaming service. That'd be similar to Disney buying up a chain of cinemas and only showing their <s>films</s> movies in those cinemas. The flipside is that independent cinema's should make these sorts of anti-competitive behaviours known to their customers: "Sorry, we can't show Star Wars: The Last Jedi because Disney has enforced conditions that we, as a small, independent cinema, can't comply with whilst remaining profitable. We do, however, recommend the following great movies that we have the freedom to screen at our discretion..."
  - techdragon 8y ago
    That last counter offensive approach won’t work in an industry where neutral third parties, aggregators in tech parlance, such as newspapers and movie phone In days of yore, and sites like IMDB these days, drive the majority of customers to a business. The aggregator doesn’t care, it’s not their problem, in fact the only way it becomes the aggregator’s problem is when the companies who use the aggregator as part of their sales funnel, that means big movie studios pulling advertising revenue from aggregators that don’t do what they like. If the cinema can get enough “organic traffic” then the rules are different but the majority of cinemas these days other than specialists, like Arthouse or foreign film focused theatres, seem increasingly beholden to the aggregator driven customers. But I’m not an industry expert so I could be wrong.
wink 8y ago
Yeah, I think the title is badly phrased and they just didn't want to write "it sucks". There hardly seems to be any other movie corporation so hellbent on domination (whereas the other studios seem to be happy enough to make money and cuddle with the MPAA...). There's a personal positive side for me. I used to watch a lot of movies from more genres, but I haven't enjoyed a lot in the last years besides Marvel and Star Wars, so that's all I watched at the cinema as well. Would prefer they didn't dominate the market and act like assholes, but at least I have some movies I like...
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- TangoTrotFox 8y ago
  This is not really accurate. The vast majority of movie/media conglomerates are massive and certainly "hellbent on domination" to borrow your phrasing. Some examples: - Time Warner owns Warner Bros Pictures, DC Films, New Line Cinema, CNN, etc, etc. - Comcast owns Universal Pictures, DreamWorks, Working Title Films, NBC, etc, etc. Disney is actually behind Comcast in revenue. And of course Disney also got in on the whole 'buy a news company' agenda - they own ABC. This practice of these mega corporations merging and acquiring ever larger shares of the entire media (and news) industry is a large part of the reason that they are in the state that they are. - List of Time Warner Assets: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assets_owned_by_WarnerMedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assets_owned_by_Warner... - List of Comcast Assets: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assets_owned_by_Comcast https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assets_owned_by_Comcas... - List of Disney Assets: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assets_owned_by_Disney https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assets_owned_by_Disney Those lists should not be viewed as all encompassing.
  - amelius 8y ago
    And why do they need domination so much? Is it another battle for the attention of the consumer?
    - 8y ago
ungzd 8y ago
The positive side is that all this Hollywood abomination with rubber suit superheroes and space swords made of petrified light may drive itself to terminal absurdity. The medium of "feature films" as a whole is disgusting and deserves at least "disruption". I deeply hate all this shitty culture: cinema theatres in shopping malls, popcorn, DVDs, bluerays, MPAAs, bearded actors' snouts all looking the same, posters all looking the same, obsession with rotten 50s scifi setting ad nauseam, sequels, prequels, triquels.
- maxerickson 8y ago
  I just now got that the name of a major character in The Expanse is an overwrought reference.

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.
pferde 8y ago
My opinion is that Disney got us rather simplistic and formulaic fan fiction sequels with overblown visual effects, while treading all over the real thing (the SW Expanded Universe). While the stories from the EU were of varying quality, at least they were interesting. These Disney sequels are so predictable and uninteresting it's not even funny. Fortunately, each of us gets to pick their own canon. For me, it will always be books by Timothy Zahn, and Disney can't do anything at all to the physical copies that I have on my shelf.
- scarface74 8y ago
  I have mixed feelings about the Last Jedi, but it definitely wasn’t predictable.
  - pferde 8y ago
    Maybe not in the individual plot elements, but the entire movie felt like they were checking off items from a list, and that they were fully aware that the movie is merely a fuel for the merchandise money machine . It was more or less just as naive and fairytale-y as the old Episode 4, and had exactly the right elements to make children go "ooooh" and "aaaaah" (and to pester their parents to buy them toys), and adults cringe. Which by itself is fine, I guess, but there wasn't any depth in it beyond the effects' wow factor.
- johnchristopher 8y ago
  > For me, it will always be books by Timothy Zahn, and Disney can't do anything at all to the physical copies that I have on my shelf. Until a little green man call a lightning bolt on it ;).
megaman22 8y ago
I'm not sure that some Jar-Jar-less sequels and some decent spinoff movies is worth deep-sixing thirty years of Lucas-approved world-building.

zachm0 8y ago

Of course I can’t back this up with any proof, but it might lead to some good content. I have a hard time seeing something like the Marvel Cinematic Universe happening if it wasn’t for Disney being as big as it is. It’s possible that Disney is the only reason Star Wars is back too. If they ever get around to making their own streaming service, having all the Disney properties in one would be amazing. Of course you could argue that these don’t outweigh the downsides of Disney having so much control but I think there some good aspects too it.

BLKNSLVR 8y ago
Good content isn't the issue. "Not only do we have to play it for four weeks straight, we have to play it four times a day," said Roper, adding that with only one screen available, it would be "very difficult" to play a single movie for a month without losing money due to lack of audience. Sounds to me like the kind of business practices that is getting Google sued by the EU, and despite their necessarily being different rules for monopoly, the above is a case of applying blanket rules for a 50-screen cinema complex as for a single-screen independent cinema because Disney doesn't need to zoom in to that level of detail. Fine lines. The law is an ass. Similar situation for a Disney-exclusive streaming service. That'd be similar to Disney buying up a chain of cinemas and only showing their <s>films</s> movies in those cinemas. The flipside is that independent cinema's should make these sorts of anti-competitive behaviours known to their customers: "Sorry, we can't show Star Wars: The Last Jedi because Disney has enforced conditions that we, as a small, independent cinema, can't comply with whilst remaining profitable. We do, however, recommend the following great movies that we have the freedom to screen at our discretion..."
- techdragon 8y ago
  That last counter offensive approach won’t work in an industry where neutral third parties, aggregators in tech parlance, such as newspapers and movie phone In days of yore, and sites like IMDB these days, drive the majority of customers to a business. The aggregator doesn’t care, it’s not their problem, in fact the only way it becomes the aggregator’s problem is when the companies who use the aggregator as part of their sales funnel, that means big movie studios pulling advertising revenue from aggregators that don’t do what they like. If the cinema can get enough “organic traffic” then the rules are different but the majority of cinemas these days other than specialists, like Arthouse or foreign film focused theatres, seem increasingly beholden to the aggregator driven customers. But I’m not an industry expert so I could be wrong.

wink 8y ago

Yeah, I think the title is badly phrased and they just didn't want to write "it sucks". There hardly seems to be any other movie corporation so hellbent on domination (whereas the other studios seem to be happy enough to make money and cuddle with the MPAA...). There's a personal positive side for me. I used to watch a lot of movies from more genres, but I haven't enjoyed a lot in the last years besides Marvel and Star Wars, so that's all I watched at the cinema as well. Would prefer they didn't dominate the market and act like assholes, but at least I have some movies I like...

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
TangoTrotFox 8y ago
This is not really accurate. The vast majority of movie/media conglomerates are massive and certainly "hellbent on domination" to borrow your phrasing. Some examples: - Time Warner owns Warner Bros Pictures, DC Films, New Line Cinema, CNN, etc, etc. - Comcast owns Universal Pictures, DreamWorks, Working Title Films, NBC, etc, etc. Disney is actually behind Comcast in revenue. And of course Disney also got in on the whole 'buy a news company' agenda - they own ABC. This practice of these mega corporations merging and acquiring ever larger shares of the entire media (and news) industry is a large part of the reason that they are in the state that they are. - List of Time Warner Assets: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assets_owned_by_WarnerMedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assets_owned_by_Warner... - List of Comcast Assets: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assets_owned_by_Comcast https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assets_owned_by_Comcas... - List of Disney Assets: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assets_owned_by_Disney https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assets_owned_by_Disney Those lists should not be viewed as all encompassing.
- amelius 8y ago
  And why do they need domination so much? Is it another battle for the attention of the consumer?
  - 8y ago

ungzd 8y ago

The positive side is that all this Hollywood abomination with rubber suit superheroes and space swords made of petrified light may drive itself to terminal absurdity. The medium of "feature films" as a whole is disgusting and deserves at least "disruption". I deeply hate all this shitty culture: cinema theatres in shopping malls, popcorn, DVDs, bluerays, MPAAs, bearded actors' snouts all looking the same, posters all looking the same, obsession with rotten 50s scifi setting ad nauseam, sequels, prequels, triquels.

maxerickson 8y ago
I just now got that the name of a major character in The Expanse is an overwrought reference.