If they weren't making good movies, people wouldn't go watch them. They've got an 80% chance of making a billion dollars off a movie just by releasing it these days.
Is The Disney Company a hoarder that destroys our favorite franchises?
- Thread starter Sci-fi fan
- Start date
I saw Tomorrowland (awful), John Carter (poor), as well as parts of Prince of Persia (a faded impression of a copy of a movie) and The Lone Ranger (an overlong, tonally jumbled remake of The Legend of Zorro, a movie that wasn't even popular the first time). What's more, I've seen the trailers for A Wrinkle in Time (which my inner child said looked like no fun at all) and The Nutcracker and the Four Realms, which I'm still not convinced is an actual, finished film.
Nearly all of Disney's attempts at new movie franchises have been well-deserved failures. Can definitely put that on Disney.
Last edited:
Yeah you're certainly not wrong...I saw Tomorrowland (awful), John Carter (poor), as well as parts of Prince of Persia (a faded impression of a copy of a movie) and The Lone Ranger (an overlong, tonally jumbled remake of The Legend of Zorro, a movie that wasn't even popular the first time). What's more, I've seen the trailers for A Wrinkle in Time (which my inner child said looked like no fun at all) and The Nutcracker and the Four Realms, which I'm still isn't convinced is an actual movie.
Nearly all of Disney's attempts at new movie franchises have been well-deserved failures. Can definitely put that on Disney.
I was thinking of the more extreme cases where, as mentioned above, schools have been asked to remove unapproved images of Micky from classrooms. I'm also thinking of how they tried to monopolize princess costumes, and how they have tried to copyright things that are in the public domain.
How/why is this kind of thing considered "extreme"?
I liked Tomorrowland a lot. And the Nutcracker, too. John Carter wasn't awful, but it wasn't anywhere near good enough to support the ridiculous budget.
But I'm not sure why we're listing these as attempts at 'new' franchises when they're all based on previous works, especially when we're apparently counting all Marvel movies as 'not new' franchises even though there's definitely never been an Eternals movie before or a Shang-Chi movie, etc.
Also, I'm not sure the time frame we're necessarily trying to talk about here, but Disney did have at least one major and successful original franchise in recent memory (Pirates of the Caribbean), it just ran its course. And there's also the question of how we're counting the animated films. Is Frozen not an original disney franchise? Moana? Zootopia? Wreck-it Ralph? Etc.
But I'm not sure why we're listing these as attempts at 'new' franchises when they're all based on previous works, especially when we're apparently counting all Marvel movies as 'not new' franchises even though there's definitely never been an Eternals movie before or a Shang-Chi movie, etc.
Also, I'm not sure the time frame we're necessarily trying to talk about here, but Disney did have at least one major and successful original franchise in recent memory (Pirates of the Caribbean), it just ran its course. And there's also the question of how we're counting the animated films. Is Frozen not an original disney franchise? Moana? Zootopia? Wreck-it Ralph? Etc.
Those were trademarks, not copyrights. And if you don't defend your trademark you will lose it. Was it good PR? No. But, if they didn't they would lose a part of their ability to make money.
Now, what they could've done was license those trademarks to the classrooms for a ridiculous low amount... that might have saved a PR shit storm... but, then, lowered the value of said trademarks.
They can certain copyright their OWN versions of public domain stories. Like, they can copyright all of the material in their own version of Hunchback of Notre Dame, those things that are unique to their version, but, they can't prevent me or you or anyone from doing a new version.
That said, do I think they can be overly zealous? They aren't alone in that. About 10 years ago, Warner Brothers basically shut down a gallery show of art because someone painted Batman and Robin as gay lovers. Clearly, it was transformative work and the artist was free to do it and even sell the work. But, Warners bullied them into silence as the artist and the gallery couldn't afford lawyers to defend.
I don't like bullies, but, I see nothing wrong with anyone (a company or an individual) advocating for their copyrights and trademarks.
It's not really necessary - the classrooms aren't profiting from Mickey. They also lobby for laws that will prevent their characters from entering the public domain. Makes perfect business sense, but not necessarily consumer friendly. Can even be interpreted as unethical.
Exactly.
Not making profit doesn't make it less infringement. It is Disney's property. Period.
That's why I said everything they do makes business sense. Doesn't make it any more of a good thing. Period.
I think that Marvel has done the best with the Disney purchase.
For the most part, and I know this is likely to be an unpopular opinion, but I feel Disney is best with single movies that they create themselves. When it comes to sequels, they are aweful. There are exceptions, of course, for example I ended up liking The Incredibles 2 better than the first! And then there's Finding Dory. *shudder* I'm not entirely sure it correlates, but it seems any existing IP they were given or bought up that they try to continue, they don't know what to do with. Example #1, Indy.
Also SW: I'm very mixed on this, but again likely an unpopular opinion, I don't feel they really know what to do with the movies. It's frustrating, and I find it difficult to express. The essence is there, sure, in a paint by numbers kind of way. But it's like being on a treadmill. The pacing might change now and then, but it goes nowhere fast. They are supposedly in a new era, but it doesn't feel like it because it feels like there's a lack of worldbuilding of a continuing nature. What is there is almost fully character-based without really acknowledging the world they are in. But yeah, I realize I'm in the minority.
The interesting thing about Pixar, and I read an article written years ago about an observation the writer had, and I feel it's even more prescient now than it was when it was first written. And in that article, the author was observing that where once Disney's 3d animation studio was struggling and Pixar was on a high, that several years later it seemed to have reversed. Disney's own studio seemed to be putting out more hits than misses while Pixar was starting to stagger creatively. The last Pixar I've seen was The Incredibles 2, and I found that to be one of their best recent efforts, which also happens to be a sequel. Like I said, exception.
For the most part, and I know this is likely to be an unpopular opinion, but I feel Disney is best with single movies that they create themselves. When it comes to sequels, they are aweful. There are exceptions, of course, for example I ended up liking The Incredibles 2 better than the first! And then there's Finding Dory. *shudder* I'm not entirely sure it correlates, but it seems any existing IP they were given or bought up that they try to continue, they don't know what to do with. Example #1, Indy.
Also SW: I'm very mixed on this, but again likely an unpopular opinion, I don't feel they really know what to do with the movies. It's frustrating, and I find it difficult to express. The essence is there, sure, in a paint by numbers kind of way. But it's like being on a treadmill. The pacing might change now and then, but it goes nowhere fast. They are supposedly in a new era, but it doesn't feel like it because it feels like there's a lack of worldbuilding of a continuing nature. What is there is almost fully character-based without really acknowledging the world they are in. But yeah, I realize I'm in the minority.
The interesting thing about Pixar, and I read an article written years ago about an observation the writer had, and I feel it's even more prescient now than it was when it was first written. And in that article, the author was observing that where once Disney's 3d animation studio was struggling and Pixar was on a high, that several years later it seemed to have reversed. Disney's own studio seemed to be putting out more hits than misses while Pixar was starting to stagger creatively. The last Pixar I've seen was The Incredibles 2, and I found that to be one of their best recent efforts, which also happens to be a sequel. Like I said, exception.
I think you misspelled awesome there.
Technically Pirates of the Caribbean isn't an original franchise either, it's based on a ride at Disneyland.
I thought Tomorrowland was based on a book. Is that not the case? If so, then yeah that one's original, too.
I believe it's based on a Disney theme park, or region thereof. Tomorrowland was one of the original Disneyland parks, along with the Magic Kingdom, Frontier Land, etc.
Meanwhile, apparently we're getting a Jungle River Safari movie soon, too. Based on the ride.
Meanwhile, I have to say that if we're going to define "original" as something not based on any pre-existing book, play, comic book, myth, etc. . . . well, then a good chunk of Hollywood history is not "original," including any number of classic films. Bye, Gone with the Wind, The Wizard of Oz,It's a Wonderful Life, The Maltese Falcon, Singin' in the Rain, My Fair Lady, The Godfather, Jaws, Planet of the Apes, Logan's Run, Soylent Green, The Fly, The Thing, Pride and Prejudice, The Sound of Music, West Side Story, Psycho, Rear Window, Strangers on a Train, Rebecca, Gone Girl, not to mention Frankenstein, Zorro, Tarzan, Sherlock Holmes, The Thin Man, James Bond, Harry Potter, etc.
Last edited:
That's going to feel like a Jumanji rip-off, I bet.
But turning rides into movies isn't a bad way for Disney to come up with original story concepts. I still think the original PotC is one of the best action comedies of the last 20 years.
And it certainly proves that they're not unwilling to try.
"Good?" What's "good" in this instance? Please define.
Many individuals I know would go to extensive lengths to protect their property (see people getting made over WiFi signals). I'm trying to figure out where the line is between "good" protection of property and "bad" protection of property.
So, assuming the mural was benign, if Disney brass were so paranoid about their property being infringed upon, they could take about five minutes and draw up a contract in which the school would pay $1 for a 99-year lease on Mickey's image for the mural.
Or, they could be predatory jerks and sue. Six of one, half dozen of another...
Similar threads
