6 ms·

Disney has always been a corrosive force on our culture. They've taken our cultural myths in the form of fairy tales and damaged them beyond repair. Profit ov

by tsherr 7y ago

Disney has always been a corrosive force on our culture. They've taken our cultural myths in the form of fairy tales and damaged them beyond repair. Profit over everything is Disney's approach. The more they own the worse it will get.

echelon 7y ago
There's no precedent for breaking up a media company for monopolizing popular culture. But perhaps there should be. Disney owns way too much. They can bully theater chains to show their films on as many screens as they want for as long as they desire, and then they take a lion's share of the revenue. Disney can print money from all of the licensing, which isn't a problem save for the fact other entrants have a huge hurdle to overcome to get shelf space. They water down their content for mass appeal, so it isn't artistically interesting. They also appease foreign governments like China. Again, it wouldn't be a problem if they weren't strong arming others out of the limited theater space. Disney+ kicked off the streaming wars. Which is going to be fantastic as a consumer... :( Disney is ridiculous. I say this despite the fact that I have a good bit of stock in the company.
- vertoc 7y ago
  > Disney+ kicked off the streaming wars. Which is going to be fantastic as a consumer... :( It actually is going to be fantastic as a consumer. Since people are cutting cable and going to Netflix, the money for content has to come from somewhere - it’s not sustainable to get unlimited quality content for everyone for $12/mo. If new streaming services didn’t appear, the only new content we would eventually have would be Netflix Originals - and if that’s all you want, you can continue just subscribing to Netflix! With Disney+ and others, it gives companies incentives to create great new content. There’s no chance we would have gotten say, the Mandalorian, on Netflix
  - echelon 7y ago
    Not if you like just one show on each streaming platform. Pay five times and navigate between five different interfaces. And they will have different scroll directions and organizational paradigms. And the ability to cancel anytime is not a perk. For people with ADHD it's a nightmare. There needs to be a Spotify for entertainment.
  - curryst 7y ago
    My primary is the lack of central distribution. I agree, $12/mo is probably too low to provide new content. I would generally be fine with paying more. What I dislike is playing whackamole with what service I can get certain content from. Is this show on Hulu? Or is it Netflix? Oh, right, Disney pulled it from Netflix and now it's on Disney+. Continue ad nauseam. Getting notifications that new content from a series is available is likewise disparate across platforms. There needs to be a central management point. Similar to how Amazon aggregates physical goods from many vendors, offering me a central and familiar interface to provide search, discovery and payments. They then handle distributing payment and providing the actual content. Amazon's Fire TV provides me with some of this (i.e. I can say "play such and such show" and it will provide me with an interface that lets me open a provider that has the content), but the fact that it's not available on my computer and that it doesn't manage the subscriptions is somewhat painful.
- gamblor956 7y ago
  Disney, even before the Fox acquisition, had multiple studios. Films released under the Disney brand were mainstream, fairly tame films intended for mass family consumption. Films released under the Touchstone label (Buena Vista before that) were a bit more adult, and featured various states of undress, coarse language, and significant amounts of (non-bloody) violence. Films released under Miramax were for adults: any content that would be R-rated or less was acceptable. Until recently, Miramax held the record for most total Oscars earned by a studio even though it has been defunct for 9 years.
- karlakush 7y ago
  > Disney+ kicked off the streaming wars. Which is going to be fantastic as a consumer... :( Amazing. You started this post complaining about monopolies, and within five sentences you're already complaining about how Netflix has too much competition. I've never seen somebody self-destruct so quickly.
- chiefalchemist 7y ago
  > "Disney is ridiculous. I say this despite the fact that I have a good bit of stock in the company." I don't want to make this personal and/or sound troll-y but where do their ridiculousness end, and you being hypocritical begin? I'm not defending Disney. But if they're obligated to serve shareholders, and you feel they're failing then sell. But to finance them and in turn mock them, well that's why Disney, Amazon, et al continue to do what they do.
  - my_usernam3 7y ago
    I agree, voting with your wallet is most important.
    - beerandt 7y ago
      Owning stock has nothing to do with voting with your wallet. Boycotts make sense; divestments are idiotic.
      - chiefalchemist 7y ago
        Boycotts say, "You won't get my money." How exactly are divestment any different? What _exactly_ makes them idiotic?
        beerandt 7y ago
        Boycotts prevent money transfer to a company (or other entity). Which can be successful, depending on market forces. A divestment (almost universally) does not; it's just a transfer of ownership to people with a bigger priority on making money vs whatever moral objection you might have. In the case of public stock, "cashing out" doesn't require the company to return the investment dollars to you. There is no money coming out of their pocket, only someone else purchasing your shares. (Except stock buybacks, which are voluntary, and in those instances, beneficial to the company.) Done on a large scale, it artificially deflates the stock price of a company below it's true market value, enabling people who have less philosophical opposition to obtain stock that's essentially subsidized by the divesting parties. (There are a few very obscure exceptions, that might initially look like divestment kills a company, but it still ends up only being an ownership transfer, just to more powerful stakeholders.) If anything, these orgs should be doing the opposite. Becoming more invested buys you more say in how a company is run. Encouraging divestment is like telling those "divestors" not to vote. If your really hate something enough, you would buy (enough of) it in order to destroy (or at least change) it.
bjt 7y ago
A few thoughts here: - To support that you'd have to show what the myths would look like today without Disney's involvement. Just as likely, they would have been forgotten. - This isn't a zero sum thing. If you prefer a different telling of a classic story, spread it! No one's stopping you. - I'm also not buying that the myths existed in some ideal state in the past that we've now fallen from. Stories always evolve.
gamblor956 7y ago
I don't know how this is the top-rated comment right now. Most Disney films are not based on fairy tales. Their biggest animated films are original works. Even their biggest live-action franchises are all original works created within the last 60 years. Indeed, one of the reasons the Marvel films do so well is because Disney has given their directors a degree of artistic control that DC would not (even though DC had the far more well-known stable of heroes) and lets the directors create other types of stories within the framework of a comic book movie (i.e., espionage thriller for Captain America, coming-of-age comedy for Spiderman, heist movie for Guardians, Shakespearean drama for Thor).
- bussiere 7y ago
  Osamu tezuka must be spinning in its grave with you ...
- serf 7y ago
  >Most Disney films are not based on fairy tales. Most, maybe now-a-days. They sure milked the premise during the early days.[0] My biggest 'Disney problem' is their abusive use of copyright, and the fact that they got away with it largely due to the use of Disney material as pro-National propaganda.[1] [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Disney_animated_films_based_on_fairy_tales https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Disney_animated_films_... [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walt_Disney%27s_World_War_II_propaganda_production https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walt_Disney%27s_World_War_II_p...
- jcranmer 7y ago
  > Most Disney films are not based on fairy tales. Their biggest animated films are original works. Since 1990, Disney has produced (in terms of animated works): * 14 films clearly based on classical mythology, fairy tales, or literature. * 7 films clearly original works * 4 sequels * Pocahontas, which is (loosely) based on historical events * Moana, which I'm not sufficiently well-versed in Polynesian mythology to know if it's based on an actual mythical event or merely draws inspiration from it * The Lion King, which is allegedly inspired or directly ripped off of Kimba the White Lion (although Disney vehemently denies it) * Wreck-it Ralph, although technically original, relies on a lot of explicit video game references.

by tsherr 7y ago

echelon 7y ago

There's no precedent for breaking up a media company for monopolizing popular culture. But perhaps there should be. Disney owns way too much. They can bully theater chains to show their films on as many screens as they want for as long as they desire, and then they take a lion's share of the revenue. Disney can print money from all of the licensing, which isn't a problem save for the fact other entrants have a huge hurdle to overcome to get shelf space. They water down their content for mass appeal, so it isn't artistically interesting. They also appease foreign governments like China. Again, it wouldn't be a problem if they weren't strong arming others out of the limited theater space. Disney+ kicked off the streaming wars. Which is going to be fantastic as a consumer... :( Disney is ridiculous. I say this despite the fact that I have a good bit of stock in the company.

vertoc 7y ago
> Disney+ kicked off the streaming wars. Which is going to be fantastic as a consumer... :( It actually is going to be fantastic as a consumer. Since people are cutting cable and going to Netflix, the money for content has to come from somewhere - it’s not sustainable to get unlimited quality content for everyone for $12/mo. If new streaming services didn’t appear, the only new content we would eventually have would be Netflix Originals - and if that’s all you want, you can continue just subscribing to Netflix! With Disney+ and others, it gives companies incentives to create great new content. There’s no chance we would have gotten say, the Mandalorian, on Netflix
- echelon 7y ago
  Not if you like just one show on each streaming platform. Pay five times and navigate between five different interfaces. And they will have different scroll directions and organizational paradigms. And the ability to cancel anytime is not a perk. For people with ADHD it's a nightmare. There needs to be a Spotify for entertainment.
- curryst 7y ago
  My primary is the lack of central distribution. I agree, $12/mo is probably too low to provide new content. I would generally be fine with paying more. What I dislike is playing whackamole with what service I can get certain content from. Is this show on Hulu? Or is it Netflix? Oh, right, Disney pulled it from Netflix and now it's on Disney+. Continue ad nauseam. Getting notifications that new content from a series is available is likewise disparate across platforms. There needs to be a central management point. Similar to how Amazon aggregates physical goods from many vendors, offering me a central and familiar interface to provide search, discovery and payments. They then handle distributing payment and providing the actual content. Amazon's Fire TV provides me with some of this (i.e. I can say "play such and such show" and it will provide me with an interface that lets me open a provider that has the content), but the fact that it's not available on my computer and that it doesn't manage the subscriptions is somewhat painful.
gamblor956 7y ago
Disney, even before the Fox acquisition, had multiple studios. Films released under the Disney brand were mainstream, fairly tame films intended for mass family consumption. Films released under the Touchstone label (Buena Vista before that) were a bit more adult, and featured various states of undress, coarse language, and significant amounts of (non-bloody) violence. Films released under Miramax were for adults: any content that would be R-rated or less was acceptable. Until recently, Miramax held the record for most total Oscars earned by a studio even though it has been defunct for 9 years.
karlakush 7y ago
> Disney+ kicked off the streaming wars. Which is going to be fantastic as a consumer... :( Amazing. You started this post complaining about monopolies, and within five sentences you're already complaining about how Netflix has too much competition. I've never seen somebody self-destruct so quickly.
chiefalchemist 7y ago
> "Disney is ridiculous. I say this despite the fact that I have a good bit of stock in the company." I don't want to make this personal and/or sound troll-y but where do their ridiculousness end, and you being hypocritical begin? I'm not defending Disney. But if they're obligated to serve shareholders, and you feel they're failing then sell. But to finance them and in turn mock them, well that's why Disney, Amazon, et al continue to do what they do.
- my_usernam3 7y ago
  I agree, voting with your wallet is most important.
  - beerandt 7y ago
    Owning stock has nothing to do with voting with your wallet. Boycotts make sense; divestments are idiotic.
    - chiefalchemist 7y ago
      Boycotts say, "You won't get my money." How exactly are divestment any different? What _exactly_ makes them idiotic?
      - beerandt 7y ago
        Boycotts prevent money transfer to a company (or other entity). Which can be successful, depending on market forces. A divestment (almost universally) does not; it's just a transfer of ownership to people with a bigger priority on making money vs whatever moral objection you might have. In the case of public stock, "cashing out" doesn't require the company to return the investment dollars to you. There is no money coming out of their pocket, only someone else purchasing your shares. (Except stock buybacks, which are voluntary, and in those instances, beneficial to the company.) Done on a large scale, it artificially deflates the stock price of a company below it's true market value, enabling people who have less philosophical opposition to obtain stock that's essentially subsidized by the divesting parties. (There are a few very obscure exceptions, that might initially look like divestment kills a company, but it still ends up only being an ownership transfer, just to more powerful stakeholders.) If anything, these orgs should be doing the opposite. Becoming more invested buys you more say in how a company is run. Encouraging divestment is like telling those "divestors" not to vote. If your really hate something enough, you would buy (enough of) it in order to destroy (or at least change) it.

bjt 7y ago

A few thoughts here: - To support that you'd have to show what the myths would look like today without Disney's involvement. Just as likely, they would have been forgotten. - This isn't a zero sum thing. If you prefer a different telling of a classic story, spread it! No one's stopping you. - I'm also not buying that the myths existed in some ideal state in the past that we've now fallen from. Stories always evolve.

gamblor956 7y ago

I don't know how this is the top-rated comment right now. Most Disney films are not based on fairy tales. Their biggest animated films are original works. Even their biggest live-action franchises are all original works created within the last 60 years. Indeed, one of the reasons the Marvel films do so well is because Disney has given their directors a degree of artistic control that DC would not (even though DC had the far more well-known stable of heroes) and lets the directors create other types of stories within the framework of a comic book movie (i.e., espionage thriller for Captain America, coming-of-age comedy for Spiderman, heist movie for Guardians, Shakespearean drama for Thor).

bussiere 7y ago
Osamu tezuka must be spinning in its grave with you ...
serf 7y ago
>Most Disney films are not based on fairy tales. Most, maybe now-a-days. They sure milked the premise during the early days.[0] My biggest 'Disney problem' is their abusive use of copyright, and the fact that they got away with it largely due to the use of Disney material as pro-National propaganda.[1] [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Disney_animated_films_based_on_fairy_tales https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Disney_animated_films_... [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walt_Disney%27s_World_War_II_propaganda_production https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walt_Disney%27s_World_War_II_p...
jcranmer 7y ago
> Most Disney films are not based on fairy tales. Their biggest animated films are original works. Since 1990, Disney has produced (in terms of animated works): * 14 films clearly based on classical mythology, fairy tales, or literature. * 7 films clearly original works * 4 sequels * Pocahontas, which is (loosely) based on historical events * Moana, which I'm not sufficiently well-versed in Polynesian mythology to know if it's based on an actual mythical event or merely draws inspiration from it * The Lion King, which is allegedly inspired or directly ripped off of Kimba the White Lion (although Disney vehemently denies it) * Wreck-it Ralph, although technically original, relies on a lot of explicit video game references.