• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Is The Disney Company a hoarder that destroys our favorite franchises?

Sci-fi fan

Lieutenant Commander
Red Shirt
In recent years, they purchased Pixar (Toy Story, Finding Nemo etc.), they purchased LucasFilm (Star Wars, Indiana Jones), they got Marvel (Every movie and comic) and they just got 20th Century Fox and Hulu (which include X-Men and The Orville among many others).

Pixar was purchased at a time they started running out of steam. Their old and most famous franchises had already played out for the most part. The Disney "Pixar" releases (they keep the names of what they consume merely to bait fans that aren't aware their favorite "indie" doesn't exist anymore) seemed more like rehashes for a money grab from old fans and the selling of toys.

Marvel wasn't exactly that but it has some of that element. For the last ~10 years (exactly the number of years Disney is in control), most Marvel movies seem cookie-cutter. It's like watching almost the same movie every single month with small variations. They are not usually terrible but most of the time you end up feeling "haven't I watched that?" and few things stick in your mind for more than 2 months.

LucasFilm was purchased at a time Lucas probably had no more ideas. The Star Wars prequels were not totally terrible because at least they were canon and different but the franchise seemed to not be what it used to be. Disney's most major attempts on that franchise was a rehash of A New Hope (Force Awakens), which was cute and comfy but ultimately a shadow of the franchise's old self for a money grab and a movie that was total nonsense in the saga (Last Jedi) since, among other things, they turned a character that refused to give up on Anakin (Luke) to someone that almost killed a child only on the suspicion he would be like Anakin (the polar opposite of what the heart of the saga used to be, hence it was total nonsense).

Now that they just got 20th Century Fox and Hulu, I expect the same treatment for X-Men and The Orville (even though The Orville is more or less a shadow of TNG already). Some milking of old fans without changing the names of parent production companies to fool old fans their favorite franchise isn't consumed by Disney).

Disney appears so obsessed in that trend of milking old franchises until they completely die that they started doing it to their own children. The Lion King 2019 appears to be the milking of an old franchise.

There is also a lot of HYPOCRISY about the entire thing. If you truly want "new", then support NEW franchises, don't milk old ones just because you know the old fans will flock unquestionably.

That means they often destroy old stories to make them "new" but turn them to nonsense because the old story no longer makes sense. It would be best for everyone to make a new franchise entirely, but that wouldn't fool the old fans their franchise still exists intact.

The best alternative for Disney is to do that they always did best: Soft reboots of very old stories that turn comfy but never revolutionary. Hell, that's what they always did, most of their iconic old movies are very old stories soft-rebooted to something comfy.

At the end of the day Disney appears best at the role of someone that takes dying franchises and soft reboots them to something comfy but never truly new. If you want new, better look at new stories entirely, because Disney never was good at that.

At their worst they don't even do that but try to change them to something that doesn't even make sense. That turns them not only weak but also annoying.
 
Last edited:
Pixar was purchased at a time they started running out of steam. Their old and most famous franchises had already played out for the most part. The Disney "Pixar" releases (they keep the names of what they consume merely to bait fans that aren't aware their favorite "indie" doesn't exist anymore) seemed more like rehashes for a money grab from old fans and the selling of toys.

Since being bought by Disney, Pixar released Wall-e, Brave, Inside Out, Coco and the Good Dinosaur.

'Rehashes for a money grab from old fans and the selling of toys'?

Marvel wasn't exactly that but it has some of that element. For the last ~10 years (exactly the number of years Disney is in control), most Marvel movies seem cookie-cutter. It's like watching almost the same movie every single month with small variations. They are not usually terrible but most of the time you end up feeling "haven't I watched that?" and few things stick in your mind for more than 2 months.

Also not true. Did you even realize when you typed this that literally the only mcu movies released before Disney bought Marvel were Iron Man and the Incredible Hulk?

LucasFilm was purchased at a time Lucas probably had no more ideas. The Star Wars prequels were not totally terrible because at least they were canon and different but the franchise seemed to not be what it used to be. Disney's most major attempts on that franchise was a rehash of A New Hope (Force Awakens), which was cute and comfy but ultimately a shadow of the franchise's old self for a money grab and a movie that was total nonsense in the saga (Last Jedi) since, among other things, they turned a character that refused to give up on Anakin (Luke) to someone that almost killed a child only on the suspicion he would be like Anakin (the polar opposite of what the heart of the saga used to be, hence it was total nonsense).

Luke was a massively better and more interesting character in TLJ than he ever had been before.

Now that they just got 20th Century Fox and Hulu, I expect the same treatment for X-Men and The Orville (even though The Orville is more or less a shadow of TNG already). Some milking of old fans without changing the names of parent production companies to fool old fans their favorite franchise isn't consumed by Disney).

Baseless speculation.

Disney appears so obsessed in that trend of milking old franchises until they completely die that they started doing it to their own children. The Lion King 2019 appears to be the milking of an old franchise.

Shocker: A franchise built for decades on children's cartoons leans heavily into nostalgia. News at 11.

There is also a lot of HYPOCRISY about the entire thing. If you truly want "new", then support NEW franchises, don't milk old ones just because you know the old fans will flock unquestionably.

That means they often destroy old stories to make them "new" but turn them to nonsense because the old story no longer makes sense. It would be best for everyone to make a new franchise entirely, but that wouldn't fool the old fans their franchise still exists intact.

Hypocrisy from who exactly? Did Disney make a public commitment to 'new' stories? That second paragraph literally makes no sense, btw.

The best alternative for Disney is to do that they always did best: Soft reboots of very old stories that turn comfy but never revolutionary. Hell, that's what they always did, most of their iconic old movies are very old stories soft-rebooted to something comfy.

At the end of the day Disney appears best at the role of someone that takes dying franchises and soft reboots them to something comfy but never truly new. If you want new, better look at new stories entirely, because Disney never was good at that.

At their worst they don't even do that but try to change them to something that doesn't even make sense. That turns them not only weak but also annoying.

Disney 'classics' are the original family friendly, feel good franchise. Their history is totally irrelevant to other franchises Disney owns.
 
The thing about Disney I don't like is the way they legally handle their IPs. Suing schools for having Mickey Mouse on their mural, 'vaulting' films to create artificial scarcity. They're reasonably good at producing films. They're at least structurally strong films, just a bit too risk averse. They 'draw within the lines' extremely well, but refusal to go outside the lines keeps their films in the 'good but not all time great' category for movies not targeted at children.

The new Star Wars films aren't perfect but if Disney didn't have Star Wars, there would still be six Star Wars films.
 
The thing about Disney I don't like is the way they legally handle their IPs. Suing schools for having Mickey Mouse on their mural, 'vaulting' films to create artificial scarcity. They're reasonably good at producing films. They're at least structurally strong films, just a bit too risk averse. They 'draw within the lines' extremely well, but refusal to go outside the lines keeps their films in the 'good but not all time great' category for movies not targeted at children.

The new Star Wars films aren't perfect but if Disney didn't have Star Wars, there would still be six Star Wars films.
Well, it works. They have 11 of the top 20 worldwide grossing films.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 777
Well, it works. They have 11 of the top 20 worldwide grossing films.

First off, don’t ever invoke the box office all time list without adjusting for inflation. :)

Exactly though. They chose a model that has a high probability to please lots of people a little, not one that can produce the kind of masterpiece the original Star Wars films were, and are the best in the business at doing it.
 
First off, don’t ever invoke the box office all time list without adjusting for inflation. :)

Exactly though. They chose a model that has a high probability to please lots of people a little, not one that can produce the kind of masterpiece the original Star Wars films were, and are the best in the business at doing it.

The kind of 'masterpiece' filled with terrible writing and wooden acting which relies almost entirely on fun pew pew and awesome fx. That sounds nothing like a Disney movie at all...
 
At the end of the day Disney appears best at the role of someone that takes dying franchises and soft reboots them to something comfy but never truly new. If you want new, better look at new stories entirely, because Disney never was good at that.

This is on the audiences, not on Disney or any other studio. Studios try to put out new content, but people don't want to see it. But, put out a new Star Wars or Marvel movie, people flock...

This site is littered with threads about reboots and remakes and how excited people are.... but don't change it too much (Women as GHOSTBUSTERS!?!?)....

It's been very clear for awhile, for the most part, audiences want something a little different but mostly the same.
 
Disney has tried to launch new franchises, but audiences have rejected them. Can't put this on Disney. They are too powerful, but so far they are benevolent kings - their job is to entertain, and they do it well.
 
I don't think the OP is on target, but Disney has always tried to expand its ownership of properties and then fiercely protect its copyrights. They have even worked very hard to protect copyrights on previously established works (Grimm's Fairy Tales, Hunchback of Notre Dame etc). That said, there is not much that anyone can really do about that, unless people organized around the world to boycott the next Marvel or Star Wars film.

That said, I really haven't seen a drop in quality to any of the properties mentioned that might not have happened with being under the Disney umbrella.

It is true that fans tend to hate anything that remotely strays from expectations (Game of Thrones) and Disney properties are no exception (reaction to The Last Jedi). The MCU, Star Wars, and Pixar fit well with the Disney expectations because the movies are meant to be watched by young and old viewers alike.

What does concern me is what appears to be an attempt at quelling some of the Marvel elements that don't fit into the MCU mold. We were told that the reason Netflix dropped their Marvel series was economic, and that is most likely the case, but now that we have not gotten an announcement for Deadpool 3 there seem to be no Marvel alternatives to the MCU style. Furthermore the bar has been set so high on profits for big budget films (okay, not only at Disney studios) that experimental or more nuanced productions (such as some of the material we are getting from DC) are more and more unlikely to be produced.
 
All I can say to the question this thread is based on is:
vwUOlMj.gif

Nonsense. They've done a great job handling the Marvel and Star Wars stuff, in my opinion.

And I'm dying of curiosity to see what they do with PLANET OF THE APES.
 
All I can say to the question this thread is based on is:
vwUOlMj.gif

If the question was whether or not a Disney monopoly would ultimately be bad for the entertainment industry, that would be worth discussing. Since the question is whether Disney destroys our favorite franchises, the answer is a resounding no, unless your favorite franchise is Snyder's DC-verse, which was indeed destroyed (at the box office) by Disney's MCU.
 
Last edited:
Oh yeah, I can see both sides monopoly debate, but as for the destroying franchises question, there is no hesitation to give a big no. Some of my favorite Pixar, MCU, and Star Wars content has all come from them after Disney got a hold of them.
 
I don't think the OP is on target, but Disney has always tried to expand its ownership of properties and then fiercely protect its copyrights. They have even worked very hard to protect copyrights on previously established works (Grimm's Fairy Tales, Hunchback of Notre Dame etc). That said, there is not much that anyone can really do about that, unless people organized around the world to boycott the next Marvel or Star Wars film.

Why shouldn't they defend their copyrights? Literally their bread and butter is in their intellectual property.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top