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

[Sci-fi fan]

But I'm not sure why we're listing these as attempts at 'new' franchises when they're all based on previous works

An irony here is that Disney was ALWAYS working on old stories. In fact their most iconic old movies are usually based on old stories that were "soft-rebooted" by them.

That's basically what Disney always did best. Get a basic story, nothing revolutionary and soft-reboot it to something comfy that offends almost nobody.

That's not always bad, it does have a place in our hearts, however, never expect from that company to truly promote the "new".

At its worst incarnations that company just turns plain destructive. e.g. rewriting Luke Skywalker to make no sense or remaking Lion King to something uninspired.

 

[thribs]

They haven’t destroyed anything so far. I just wish they would release the Sword of the Jedi novel already. It’s been 6 years!
I also wish they wouldn’t be so money hungry and allow 4K streaming on iTunes. I’m sure that missing $5 isn’t hurting them.

 

[Sci-fi fan]

I feel Disney is best with single movies that they create themselves.

You are apparently right but I believe the deeper reality is that they are generally best when a) they aren't very experimental b) when they don't rewrite but only soft-reboot (when it goes to using an old story)

They generally offend almost nobody and they aren't too revolutionary when people like them best. They are basically comfy, and they are the best in the business at being comfy.

When it turns wrong is when a franchise was more than that and it has been acquired by them. They often turn it too tame or if they rewrite it then turn it to nonsense.

I could be negative and say they are basically a cemetery of old franchises, but, it's also the responsibility of the old franchises. e.g. Lucas had run out of steam. Probably something similar was happening with Pixar and possibly or partly with Marvel.

In any case people should not confuse Disney as something more than it is: an entity that makes comfy stuff and almost never offends. Don't expect revolutionary and truly "new" for them, for 95% of the time they produce anything. At their worst they may rewrite old stuff to turn them annoying and non-sensical (Luke Skywalker) or even soft-reboot them but badly in an uninspired way (The Lion King).

 

[Sci-fi fan]

Oh, come on. The OT Luke is one of the most loved characters in film history to the millions across serval generations who watched the OT in theatres, as he and his journey were compelling. Audiences easily felt his successes, failures and threats to his life/soul along with the character. I'm not seeing some mass numbers of generations saying that about TLJ-Luke at all.

It's pretty obvious most defenders of the nonsense of the rewriting of the character at TLJ don't even understand the original story. Luke is not only a character, he is the very heart of the original story precisely because he was the only one that thought the most evil person in the galaxy can be redeemed.

Rewriting him to someone that almost killed a child because he had a suspicion he might turn evil was utter nonsense.

 

[thribs]

I would also say turning Marvel comics so that they fit better with the look of the movies wasn’t a very wise idea. The comics are suppose to affect the movies, not the other way round. It’s the reason I don’t read as many now. That and their constant events that suck and resets to #1.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

Wait a second, there is a difference between straying from expectations and rewriting a story that already exists to become total nonsense. If you truly want "new", stop milking an old franchise because it has fans that automatically buy anything and everything from it, be honest and create a new saga altogether (maybe even if it's on the same franchise, but at least don't make characters not make sense).

e.g. the Luke Skywalker character was in my opinion re-written to make absolutely no sense: he went from someone that insisted the most evil person in the galaxy can be redeemed to someone that almost killed a child because he suspected it might turn evil. That's pure hypocrisy there by the defenders: if they truly promote "new", they shouldn't ruin the established, promote new sagas.

A) No one here is arguing that we love Disney movies because we absolutely positively must have THE *NEW*. Stop trying to argue against positions people aren't even making. New is not automatically better (nor is old automatically better - quality is in general by far the most important thing).

B) Your opinion of Luke Skywalker is not fact. The Last Jedi didn't ruin anything for me.

You are apparently right but I believe the deeper reality is that they are generally best when a) they aren't very experimental b) when they don't rewrite but only soft-reboot (when it goes to using an old story)

They generally offend almost nobody and they aren't too revolutionary when people like them best. They are basically comfy, and they are the best in the business at being comfy.

When it turns wrong is when a franchise was more than that and it has been acquired by them. They often turn it too tame or if they rewrite it then turn it to nonsense.

I could be negative and say they are basically a cemetery of old franchises, but, it's also the responsibility of the old franchises. e.g. Lucas had run out of steam. Probably something similar was happening with Pixar and possibly or partly with Marvel.

In any case people should not confuse Disney as something more than it is: an entity that makes comfy stuff and almost never offends. Don't expect revolutionary and truly "new" for them, for 95% of the time they produce anything. At their worst they may rewrite old stuff to turn them annoying and non-sensical (Luke Skywalker) or even soft-reboot them but badly in an uninspired way (The Lion King).

I see you're still completely ignoring the multiple completely original animated smash hits produced by Disney/Pixar in the last decade.

And how the hell do you think Marvel studios was 'running out of steam' after just Iron Man and Incredible Hulk, or that the post Disney marvel movies are significantly worse than just those two? Disney got in on the ground floor of the MCU, they did not take a long-running success story and fundamentally change it around. The MCU did not change significantly at all after the acquisition, except that their long-term storytelling came to fruition (and beautifully so).

I would also say turning Marvel comics so that they fit better with the look of the movies wasn’t a very wise idea. The comics are suppose to affect the movies, not the other way round. It’s the reason I don’t read as many now. That and their constant events that suck and resets to #1.

I see no reason why there should only be a one-way relationship between them. Good comics are good comics. And bad comics aren't bad because they look more like the movies.

The resets are idiotic, though. And the events have a problematic history, I agree, though I firmly believe they can be (and sometimes are) done very well (loved Secret Empire, for instance).

 

[Sci-fi fan]

you're still completely ignoring the multiple completely original animated smash hits produced by Disney/Pixar in the last decade.

They are a giant. Sure you found a handful of examples of partial originality, which is still inoffensive and almost never experimental. But for the sake of being a devil's advocate I won't even consider that a negative, let's say that Disney is mainly here to make comfy stuff and we like comfy stuff, nothing too wrong with that (though don't expect too much industry shifting stuff from them).

But again, they are a giant. Count now how much of what they do is basically: soft-rebooting, rewriting, taking old franchises that their original creators had run out of steam (Pixar, Lucas, sure some ideas may still be new there but their glory days were long gone). Marvel does sound to be inbetween because they purchased it early, but they also managed to turn it relatively uninspired.

I mean, you have a gigantic conglomerate that controls the majority of sci-fi and fantasy fiction right now through several Corporations. Of course there will be originality here and there but it's a minority.

To be honest, I start being surprised they have not purchased Star Trek yet.

 

[N-121973]

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.

Likewise. Now that they've got photo-realistic apes we can finally, finally get an adaptation of Pierre Boulle's work that shows a planet-wide technologically advanced ape civilisation. It could even be a sequel to the existing trilogy. For the record the original Planet of the Apes film with Charlton Heston is one of my top ten favourite films.

When would you defend it? When the 100th school did it? When they were selling it without your permission? Perhaps when it gets featured in a picture regarding politics you don't agree with? What's the line for defending personal property?

Each step invites more infringement upon personal property rights. But, by all means, please pitch your idea to the school. Perhaps they will replace it with yours

When the school decides to make a prequel to Steamboat Willie, put it up on You Tube and sells coffee with your characters likenesses on it to fund the creation of the animation facilities that you plan to use to produce it.

 

[Campe]

When the school decides to make a prequel to Steamboat Willie, put it up on You Tube and sells coffee with your characters likenesses on it to fund the creation of the animation facilities that you plan to use to produce it.

Will Willie have to go to war and be the only one who can save the river against the D-7s —er, river pirates?

 

[Grendelsbayne]

They are a giant. Sure you found a handful of examples of partial originality, which is still inoffensive and almost never experimental. But for the sake of being a devil's advocate I won't even consider that a negative, let's say that Disney is mainly here to make comfy stuff and we like comfy stuff, nothing too wrong with that (though don't expect too much industry shifting stuff from them).

But again, they are a giant. Count now how much of what they do is basically: soft-rebooting, rewriting, taking old franchises that their original creators had run out of steam (Pixar, Lucas, sure some ideas may still be new there but their glory days were long gone). Marvel does sound to be inbetween because they purchased it early, but they also managed to turn it relatively uninspired.

I mean, you have a gigantic conglomerate that controls the majority of sci-fi and fantasy fiction right now through several Corporations. Of course there will be originality here and there but it's a minority.

To be honest, I start being surprised they have not purchased Star Trek yet.

I didn't find a 'handful of instances of partial originality'. Explain to me how Wall-e, Ratatouille, The Good Dinosaur, Inside Out, Coco, Up, and Brave are any less original than the average non-Disney movie. Explain to me how none of them are really good movies and are only popular because of the brand. These are literally the majority of Pixar releases since Disney acquired that company to 'Ruin it'. Where is the ruining? Where is the wild lack of creativity?

If you want to tag the disney classics line for unoriginality (even though its literally long been based on fairy tale stories, and people like that, so why should they not continue with it?), whatever. Although even on the purely Disney side, they still came up with Zootopia and Wreck-it Ralph and I'm pretty sure Moana wasn't actually based on any pre-existing story, either.

But the Disney classics are not a stand in for every franchise Disney owns. Star Wars (which has in no way been unoriginal compared to older Star Wars) is not a stand in for every disney line. Pixar has not lacked originality at all under disney, neither has Marvel lost any originality you think it might have had pre-Disney (obviously its entire company exists to bring Marvel Comics to life, so that aspect was always there).

 

[Sci-fi fan]

I said they have a few good movies. But they are a giant, they control almost all popular sci-fi and fantasy Corporations, of course at least a small minority will be good.

Now compare it to the fest of soft-rebooting, rewriting and uninspired repetition they do.

 

[Campe]

I said they have a few good movies. But they are a giant, they control almost all popular sci-fi and fantasy Corporations, of course at least a small minority will be good.

Now compare it to the fest of soft-rebooting, rewriting and uninspired repetition they do.

Obviously audiences go for that. I’m not suggesting that I don’t get a little tired of the numerous sequels and remakes that are coming out these days because I do. (And yes, I enjoy Disney Star Wars and Marvel movies... now go ahead and call me a hypocrite.)

But I respect the fact that Disney is a business. They have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders and they have to do what sells. And right now, looking at the top 10 box office grossers, 7 of them were produced by Disney (8 now are owned by Disney with the acquisition of 20th Century Fox and Avatar). 8 are sequels, remakes or part of ongoing series. (And one of the two that aren’t will have far too many sequels coming soon. Again, Avatar.) So that leaves Titanic as the only top grosser to be an original story without any franchisement around it. Which I have to ask, is it really that much of an original story?

Disney is doing right by their shareholders. General audiences are far more interested in continuing stories and sequels. It’s unfortunate when there are so many great ideas out there but I don’t put any of that on the company.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

I said they have a few good movies. But they are a giant, they control almost all popular sci-fi and fantasy Corporations, of course at least a small minority will be good.

Now compare it to the fest of soft-rebooting, rewriting and uninspired repetition they do.

You said they ruin every franchise/company they acquire. So stop hiding behind vague generalities and tell me exactly how Disney 'ruined' Pixar. Tell me exactly how they 'ruined' Marvel.

Your opinion on Star Wars is clear, and it's really nothing but opinion. Your opinion on Fox and all those *other* sci-fi properties you keep harping on is totally irrelevant because we haven't even seen the Disney version of those properties yet. They prove nothing. And the Disney Classics line has no relevance to the question of Disney ruining other franchises they acquire.

 

[Professor Zoom]

It's pretty obvious most defenders of the nonsense of the rewriting of the character at TLJ don't even understand the original story. Luke is not only a character, he is the very heart of the original story precisely because he was the only one that thought the most evil person in the galaxy can be redeemed.

Rewriting him to someone that almost killed a child because he had a suspicion he might turn evil was utter nonsense.

Ah. I see. Because I have a different opinion it’s because I “didn’t understand” or “don’t get it.” Sure. Why don’t you call me stupid and get it over with?

I have a different point of view. Get over yourself.

 

[fireproof78]

It's pretty obvious most defenders of the nonsense of the rewriting of the character at TLJ don't even understand the original story. Luke is not only a character, he is the very heart of the original story precisely because he was the only one that thought the most evil person in the galaxy can be redeemed.

Rewriting him to someone that almost killed a child because he had a suspicion he might turn evil was utter nonsense.

It's not like people can change based upon their experiences... People and characters are not static and should not be expected to remain identical across a series.

Luke reacted to the Dark Side, like all Jedi had done in the past. And then, he stopped himself. That's all it was. A moment of weakness that he immediately regretted.

And my understanding Luke in the ST doesn't mean I don't understand the character from the OT. It means I expect characters to grow and change, especially over the course of decades.

 

[Professor Zoom]

It's not like people can change based upon their experiences... People and characters are not static and should not be expected to remain identical across a series.

Luke reacted to the Dark Side, like all Jedi had done in the past. And then, he stopped himself. That's all it was. A moment of weakness that he immediately regretted.

And my understanding Luke in the ST doesn't mean I don't understand the character from the OT. It means I expect characters to grow and change, especially over the course of decades.

If Luke was the same Luke, I’d have some questions, like: where were you asshole while the rise of the First Order happened?

Luke realized he was dangerous. Being the son of Vader night do that. He rightly took himself off the board. By far more interesting than meditating for 20 years or something.

But this “change” in Luke brings us back to the topic at hand. Fans don’t want anything different. They want the same with the illusion of different.

 

[suarezguy]

Yeah. I’m sure everyone at Disney and Marvel would trade and go back to those days. Lol

Doesn't mean the fans need to regard these days as better just because the companies are making more profit.

 

[Professor Zoom]

Doesn't mean the fans need to regard these days as better just because the companies are making more profit.

#NotAllFans.

I think they are better. I don’t think I’m alone, but of course, YMMV.

 

[Greg Cox]

I would also say turning Marvel comics so that they fit better with the look of the movies wasn’t a very wise idea. The comics are suppose to affect the movies, not the other way round. It’s the reason I don’t read as many now. That and their constant events that suck and resets to #1.

On the other hand, there's always been back-and-forth between the media and comics versions, almost from the very beginning. Superman first started flying in the old Max Fleischer cartoons, the Superman radio show gave us Jimmy Olsen, Perry White, and kryptonite, the Barbara Gordon "Batgirl" was invented expressly at the request of the 1960s TV show, Harley Quinn and Rene Montoya migrated from The Animated Series to the comics, etc.

It's a feedback loop and alway has been. The media versions have been affecting the comics (and vise versa) since the 1940s at least.

 

[Anwar]

It's pretty obvious most defenders of the nonsense of the rewriting of the character at TLJ don't even understand the original story. Luke is not only a character, he is the very heart of the original story precisely because he was the only one that thought the most evil person in the galaxy can be redeemed.

And then he was fine murdering that same person in a moment of rage.

Rewriting him to someone that almost killed a child because he had a suspicion he might turn evil was utter nonsense.

His suspicions turned out to be right, and Luke realized he was wrong to do what he was planning and stopped himself before he could ever harm Kylo.