• 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?

Not worried about it. Disney doesn't own ideas, they recycle other people's these days. My favorite moment for Disney will be the late 70'sthrough the mid-late 80's: oddly enough, when it was not doing well but was desperate enough to throw anything at the wall and see what would stick. We get true oddity's like Black Hole, Tron, even Brave Little Toaster (a curiously engrossing animated film based on a book by the underappreciated Thomas Disch, and unfortunately treated like the red-headed stepchild by Disney)

When the content generator lists go for something negative about they always bring up films from this period as if it were their Malaise days but I think it was their most creative period. They just found that sticking with the formula sold better. Generally when Disney has tried to go beyond the norm, at least in the more modern era, it's brought trouble (Treasure Planet, Black Cauldron) and the corporate culture e is naturally risk adverse.

Why not spend a few years cranking out live action films? They're going to make money. They will hit stockholder expectations. And is it any worse than DTV sequel number 10 of Pocahontas, or whatever number they are up to? They don't even have to be that great. And if you can paint over a few sins with them like Dumbo, that's extra cool points. Why not crank out more MCU films till the end of time: they keep their hand lightly on the tiller for that, as long as production schedules are met, smart people are keeping that franchise effervescent.

I'm not worried about them destroying franchises. I don't think they well. But here's the funny thing: I actually wish they would.

I loved Marvel since I was a kid. I spent my tiny collection of spare change and allowance for titles like Psy Force, West Coast Avengers and Spiderman. I got my star wars toys from garage sales and Goodwill. I love those franchises probably more than I should and I would honestly like them to die. For awhile. Because they'll come back, under a new company perhaps, and they'll have a bit of what we used to like about them and something new, if they're done right and then the'll still be worth revisiting. And it will be worth the decade or two wait. Or the rebirth will fail or like the attempted (by Disney!) resurrections of Oz, hardly anyone will care and they will be past their prime and picked up by Dynamite Comics and that will be that. Because new things will come and that's really more important. Star Trek spent its time periodically in the wilderness and for the most part, that's been good for it. and the time will come for it to go back in the bin as well, sooner than later.
 
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.

This, and OF COURSE, they want the comics to be more like the movies. They would love if some of the people who turn out for the movies would start reading the comics. Imagine the movie audiences surprise when the comic versions of the characters they love aren't anything like the movie version.

Comic books need a good injection of new readership.

Not worried about it. Disney doesn't own ideas, they recycle other people's these days. My favorite moment for Disney will be the late 70'sthrough the mid-late 80's: oddly enough, when it was not doing well but was desperate enough to throw anything at the wall and see what would stick. We get true oddity's like Black Hole, Tron, even Brave Little Toaster (a curiously engrossing animated film based on a book by the underappreciated Thomas Disch, and unfortunately treated like the red-headed stepchild by Disney)

I have such a soft spot for the Black Hole and Tron. Perhaps flawed in someways, but, man, they both captured my imagination.
 
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.

This is exactly what I was referring to. The story has been written such as Luke has become disillusioned in the intervening years. There is nothing in the story that changes or contradicts what happened in the OT. You can say you didn't like the movie, but this type of over-reaction is on a much different level.

Other examples include James Olson in Supergirl or pretty much any character whose skin color changes even though greater discretion is given to changing somebody's hair color, Superman in Man of Steel, upcoming changes to the LSH, Superman's red shorts (for years people complained about them and then they wanted them back), etc.
 
Not worried about it. Disney doesn't own ideas, they recycle other people's these days. My favorite moment for Disney will be the late 70'sthrough the mid-late 80's
I have such a soft spot for the Black Hole and Tron.
Interesting examples but they are so gigantic today that they can be still experimental very rarely. Add all the corporations they control, and they produce about 2 to 5 major budget sci-fi or fantasy movies a month.

In part they are not what they used to be but what usually remains good in them, is what they usually used to be. Their most iconic creations weren't usually that revolutionary or experimental, they were mostly safe soft-reboots of well known stories.

That's a blessing and a curse. On one hand you may prefer to see a dying franchise that goes down the drain (prequel Star-Wars) get a soft-reboot that is comfy (The Force Awakens) but on the other that's not really original and too interesting and often they may do a bad rewrite that makes no sense in connection to the rest franchise (The Last Jedi).

However, I notice an enlargement of their lust to soft reboot old franchises lately. It's like they can't stop. It's especially worrisome when they ruin The Lion King and part of Star Wars in their haste to milk the old fans. It would be usually not a big concern because sometimes a soft-reboot is comfy and better than nothing (even though rarely spectacular) but they are not anymore just a successful company, they are a behemoth, a Conglomerate that controls several Corporations that produce the majority of sci-fi and fantasy today, or at least the most popular ones.
 
Last edited:
It's especially worrisome when they ruin The Lion King ....

Boy, I wish they would buy me and ruin me then....

And before you get into your... "just because it made money doesn't mean its good argument..." Box office is literally the most important metric to a business that's in the business to make money at the box office.

ALSO: the industry has changed significantly since the 1980s and 70s. There are more options for eyeballs nowadays. Streaming, video games. Movies turn over quickly now. With more competition for the audiences time and dollar, it's no surprise they are going with what works and what is attracting an audience.

There is zero space now for the mid-range picture. It's either go big or go home.

Is it Disney's fault or the audience who gets a hard on when they hear the Star Wars theme or Simba moaning about the Circle of Life?
 
Last edited:
And before you get into your... "just because it made money doesn't mean its good argument..." Box office is literally the most important metric to a business that's in the business to make money at the box office.

But that not entirely correct. The criteria of what defines a successful movie has changed drastically in the last fifteen years. It used to be that production companies made a variety of movies with varying budgets and successes were based on net profit vs. the cost of the film. Now "blockbuster" films dominate the box office leaving very little room for smaller, auteur style films.

The Martin Scorseses, David Lynches, and Jim Jarmusches of today have all but disappeared in traditional movie theatre venues.
 
This is exactly what I was referring to. The story has been written such as Luke has become disillusioned in the intervening years. There is nothing in the story that changes or contradicts what happened in the OT. You can say you didn't like the movie, but this type of over-reaction is on a much different level.
Exactly. If TLJ happened right after ROTJ I would agree. However, it's been a few years.
However, I notice an enlargement of their lust to soft reboot old franchises lately.
This is not new.
 
But that not entirely correct. The criteria of what defines a successful movie has changed drastically in the last fifteen years. It used to be that production companies made a variety of movies with varying budgets and successes were based on net profit vs. the cost of the film. Now "blockbuster" films dominate the box office leaving very little room for smaller, auteur style films.

I'm not seeing how I'm not entirely correct. Especially in terms of Disney, a 4 quadrant film company entirely uninterested in small films.

The Martin Scorseses, David Lynches, and Jim Jarmusches of today have all but disappeared in traditional movie theatre venues.

Not Scorsese. He is till very much in traditional movie theaters. Lynch and Jarmusch were never really in mainstream movie houses--not like Scorsese, Spielberg, De Palma, etc...
 
Interesting examples but they are so gigantic today that they can be still experimental very rarely. Add all the corporations they control, and they produce about 2 to 5 major budget sci-fi or fantasy movies a month.

In part they are not what they used to be but what usually remains good in them, is what they usually used to be. Their most iconic creations weren't usually that revolutionary or experimental, they were mostly safe soft-reboots of well known stories.

That's a blessing and a curse. On one hand you may prefer to see a dying franchise that goes down the drain (prequel Star-Wars) get a soft-reboot that is comfy (The Force Awakens) but on the other that's not really original and too interesting and often they may do a bad rewrite that makes no sense in connection to the rest franchise (The Last Jedi).

However, I notice an enlargement of their lust to soft reboot old franchises lately. It's like they can't stop. It's especially worrisome when they ruin The Lion King and part of Star Wars in their haste to milk the old fans. It would be usually not a big concern because sometimes a soft-reboot is comfy and better than nothing (even though rarely spectacular) but they are not anymore just a successful company, they are a behemoth, a Conglomerate that controls several Corporations that produce the majority of sci-fi and fantasy today, or at least the most popular ones.
Its easy to forget that disney has killed a few potential franchises lately:

Tron:sequel did not do as well as hoped. I admit i was disappointed with it. I wanted a return to tron, but it felt flat.. Got a lousy video game too (Tron deserved better)

Black Hole reboot: we'll never know. Disney scrapped the project after it obtained Star Wars. The best arguement that Disney does hoard franchises, but in this case it was a risky reboot of a movie that did not sit well with audiences at the time and is still controversial now.

John Carter: Absolutely tanked. Its not a bad movie, but it's not a great movie. The choice to rename this movie and lose hundreds of millions proves Disney is not a flawless machine that just prints money. It lost a lot with John Carter.

Lone Ranger: won't be seeing any more of these for awhile. Probably a long while.

Tomorowland: I have no doubt the house of mouse would have delved into this universe more and created a proper franchise. The movie practically whispers world-building the entire time, but for whatever reason, audiences did not show up. Took my kids to it in a nearly empty theater. i had the same feeling I had in an empty theater watching Cloud Atlas "great movie, but doomed" It might be the most beautiful live action disney movie ever made and one with a good message. But .. that's life.

Oz: I think Disney did a great job with Oz the Great and Powerful. I don't know why it didn't do better. I don't think Disney does either. They're 0 for 2 now on Oz reviving attempts. Funny thing is, apart from stuff on screen MOST of Frank Baum's universe is in the public domain, I'm surprised more studios haven't given it a try.
 
I'm not seeing how I'm not entirely correct. Especially in terms of Disney, a 4 quadrant film company entirely uninterested in small films.

In the past major production companies would invest in quality low budget films because they believed in the importance of cinema. This doesn't happen any longer.

Not Scorsese. He is till very much in traditional movie theaters. Lynch and Jarmusch were never really in mainstream movie houses--not like Scorsese, Spielberg, De Palma, etc...

I was using those names as examples. A young Scorsese-like artist would not become successful in today's market because there are not major studios who would invest in those movies. Lynch was actually a mainstream cultural icon in the seventies and eighties (Elephantman, Dune, Blue Velvet), and Jarmusch movies were at least played in multiplexes. Today these movies go straight to streaming. Netflix seems to be the only company investing in more "art house" style films such as Roma.

I don't want to sound like I am dumping on Disney because I think they have done a great job with the franchises I enjoy. I am really enjoying the Star Wars movies (Solo was a lot better than it is given credit for, and Rogue One was awesome), and the MCU is required viewing.
 
Honestly, this is a "problem" that solves itself. If audiences get tired of remakes and rebooted old franchises, they'll stop buying tickets and the studios will stop making them.

In the meantime, let the public enjoy what it wants, even if a few jaded cineastes grumble.
/thread

Thanks, Greg!
 
Just because it made money doesn't mean its good.
Money does not equate good. Leave the dark side.

Jeez, you still made the argument. Good is also an opinion. 89% of the audience of Lion King thought it was good. So, where does that leave us? With box office.

In the past major production companies would invest in quality low budget films because they believed in the importance of cinema. This doesn't happen any longer.

It doesn’t happen not because they don’t care about cinema, it’s not as profitable. That’s on the audience being more interested in streaming content for 11 bucks a month than going to a movie theater for 15 bucks for 2 hours of content.
 
It doesn’t happen not because they don’t care about cinema, it’s not as profitable. That’s on the audience being more interested in streaming content for 11 bucks a month than going to a movie theater for 15 bucks for 2 hours of content.
These days, those kinds of movies have a new title... "Limited run Cable/Streaming series" Chernobyl, Big Little Lies, hell even The Good Place is in the vein of high concept comedies we used to get.
 
These days, those kinds of movies have a new title... "Limited run Cable/Streaming series" Chernobyl, Big Little Lies, hell even The Good Place is in the vein of high concept comedies we used to get.

Chernobyl is a great example—and great. 30 years ago, it would’ve been the type of story for a mid range movie. Now, the limited series. Which is great because there’s more space.
 
Honestly, this is a "problem" that solves itself. If audiences get tired of remakes and rebooted old franchises, they'll stop buying tickets and the studios will stop making them.

In the meantime, let the public enjoy what it wants, even if a few jaded cineastes grumble.
It's not that clear-cut when they become that large. They currently seem to own the majority of popular sci-fi and fantasy franchises.
What you say makes perfect sense with good competition. But currently, is there good competition?

edit: I honestly start being surprised they haven't purchased Star Trek yet.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top