I'm no media/film expert, but this sounds like a great acquisition for Disney. The current library/brands and Disney's distribution can squeeze any cash left from past movies/brands. Going forward this can be a true money-printing machine. Lets just hope they acknowledge the internet is the retail distribution channel of today.
Also, funny how life works. Pixar, a spin-off of Lucasfilm back in the 90's "acquires" Lucasfilm. Am I right in saying that Disney's movie division is headed/managed by the Pixar guys?
No, Alan Horn's in charge of Disney Studios, which includes Pixar, Disney's regular animation division, and live-action movies.
Check out the image on their corporate site, it looks like Lucas is worried about his cat being held hostage to force him to sign: http://thewaltdisneycompany.com/
Ok. Point made. But if this ends with JJ Abrams doing a "reboot" of ANH where Han is a genuinely nice guy and Greedo was just 'misunderstood', I shall be very put out.
A reboot is more likely to be gritty given the fashion of the times. Expect to see Han Solo made into a heroin addicted jazz critic who's not a smuggler.
I wonder if pop culture will ever reboot the concept of reboots to make future reboots all pleasant and optimistic. This already happened with comic books- after the grittiness of deconstruction in the '80s with Watchmen, The Dark Knight Returns, etc., there was a trend of reconstruction comics that hearkened a return to the heroic Golden Age.
the way i see it, jar jar binks and the associated atrocities marked a sharp drop in the quality of the series anyway. there's nothing worse disney can really do to it, and they might just do something better.
In the press statement they say it is $4 billion "transaction value", which tends to translate to enterprise value (not equity). So that $4bn number might be equity + net debt + any other provisions, etc.
" the transaction value is $4.05 billion, with Disney paying approximately half of the consideration in cash and issuing approximately 40 million shares at closing."
Half of it is cash, that is $2.025B. Represents an a pretty healthy chunk of cash on top of the $2B in Disney stock. It will be interesting to see what he does next.
I suppose that, in theory, he could have given away non-voting shares to some of his employees over time. But then I would have expected the press release to specify that he was the sole voting shareholder, rather than "the sole shareholder."
I don't really know much about the movie business, but my understanding is that new companies are incorporated for each individual movie project. The investors (of cash, franchise IP, or time) receive shares in that movie's corporation. Presumably the profits are then paid out as dividends, or the company is dissolved, and assets are distributed. That would explain why George Lucas never suffered any dilution on Lucasfilm, which presumably is just a shell whose main purpose is ownership of the various franchises and holding shares in the various sub-companies.
The whole shebang is owned by GWL. I once heard George say that he had no interest in going public. He wanted his companies to work on his projects before anything else, which cause a lot of grief at ILM some years ago.
This means that Disney now controls Marvel, Pixar, LucasArts, ABC, ESPN, A+E, Disney Channel plus all their own original content and of course the parks and merchandising rights for everything stated above. Those businesses most likely control the top 10 film franchises of the last few years. This is a pretty insane acquisition.
How does it do that? Disney has had a reasonably friendly relationship with Apple due to Steve's presence on both boards. Now that he's gone that might weaken, but he had a long time to win hearts and minds over there.
Simple: Because the strategy is to keep Apple out of the content biz, as owners. It keeps Apple as a customer, while the TV/Cable's themselves vertically integrate. This sets up the Tv/Cable-co's to to extract rents. Now Disney <controls> a Pixar, Lucas ESPN, et al; Comcast <controls> Universal & NBC. This Apple TV?...etc.
I seriously doubt that Apple wants to be in the content biz any more than they already are with their first party apps. I'd guess Steve was fairly cognizant of the fact that the decline of Sony was directly related to their media acquisitions in the late 80's. When the media people get seats at the big table you develop an institutional hostility to the sorts of disruptive devices that Apple wants to build and Sony used to. Instead you get things like Ultraviolet, rootkits and the George Hotz fiasco.
The relevant point is that Sony was not a distribution platform/network, and Apple is. And ESPN is mission critical for all cable platforms, so Dis ~by proxy, if not outright.
Sony is not a distribution platform, ok. Apple is, ok. ESPN is mission critical for all cable platforms, ok. Dis by proxy, ok.
None of these statements are false but none of them lead me to think Apple wants to own any of these content businesses.
If Apple was going to buy any content company it's pretty obvious that they would have bought Pixar. Instead Steve sold Pixar to Disney. Now you're telling us that Disney's owning of these properties like Pixar is terrible for Apple but it doesn't fit the observed data.
You're too focused on Apple, and not focused on the companies defending their positions against Apple. The big threats to Hollywood are: (1) Hulu; (2) Netflix; (3) Apple.
Valuation:
(1) $1-2B
(2) $10B
(3) $6-700B > Notice the orders of magnitude.
Strategy:
(1) Hulu - kill by benign neglect (this is done)
(2) Netflix - starve of tier 1 content (this is done)
(3) Apple - keep them out of the game (this is in process)
Right now, Apple themselves are more focused on SV (google, fb). But Apple has the ability to do things (1) and (2) cannot do, <should they want to> due to size ($100B cash?).
Thus, strategies to kill (1) and (2) don't work (against apple). The best way to 'win' is to never let them into the game.
Hollywood/RIAA will use a combination of vertical-integration, regional oligopoly, and legislation to protect their cash-cow businesses, just common sense.
Hollywood doesn't want to kill Hulu (which it owns) or Netflix any more than it wants to kill Wal-Mart or theater chains. The current threats to Hollywood profits are The Pirate Bay and YouTube and to a lesser extent RedBox. Netflix was briefly in a very favorable contract regime but that didn't last very long at all.
"The best way to 'win' is to never let them into the game."
This entire argument rests on the idea that Apple wants to "be in the game" -- i.e. become a big content company -- but that's what I'm contesting. And the whole thing falls apart because if it's bad for Apple that Disney acquires more content then why did Jobs sell Pixar to Disney?
Hulu is worth $1-2B, maybe. Its a sacrificial lamb. To each individual shareholder, its a fraction of this "value". But Hulu is near "value-less" without its rights deals (see: failed IPO). [1]
As for the rest, I think you mis-understand the logic.
The Hollywood's strategy doesn't hinge on Apple's beliefs. In the same way that the strategy in Chess of Black may be pursued absent White understanding it.
The greatest battles won, are those never fought
(to paraphrase Sun Tzu)
It used to be said tha Steve Jobs knew what a consumer wanted before he ever imagined it. It did not matter to Jobs if the consumer was unawares of the virtues of his future products. He built them anyway.
Similarly, when trying purchase financial assets, it is best to do your buying when the rest of the market does not understand your strategy. That keeps the price down, competition at bay, and the liquidity high.
Common sense says: this why hedge funds are secretive.
__________
[1] Don't think for a moment that this is not fully understood, by the owners.
For a company the size of Apple, to get into content production it would be less expensive and quicker for them to acquire than to build it in house.
And for any good partnership, there needs to be a Win-win on both sides. If Apple were to sabotage it's content agnosticism, would probably hurt it's mobile market share.
But consider the counter-example: Hulu's failed IPO. The idea that these assets are available for sale is an assumption, not a given. The uncertainty of this assumption killed any chance of a Hulu IPO. The TV/film assets are protected by <copyright as monopoly>; and if they can be monetized outside of apple, they will be. That is pretty much in line with the observable data to date.
Therefore, it should be noted that they directly, or via tacit gatekeeping, have a huge amount of influence on our public dialog and cultural messaging.
Marvel, Pixar, LucasArts, ABC, ESPN, A+E, Disney Channel, and associated merchandising. I'm not sure how much "control" over our "public dialog" this really implies. I'm the parent of two very normal middle aged children and, while they're certainly exposed to some of this IP, I'd contest that it has much "influence" over them.
Google has much more control over our public dialog than Disney does.
Yet it would seem that Disney has a lot more to lose if IP laws are not kept in their favor, as evidenced by the Life+70 copyright extension they were able to successfully lobby into existence.
Google and Disney clearly have two very different set of influences, but to imply that Disney has little control is simply wrong. Ultimately the buck stops with our various representatives, but Disney has some serious skin in the game of keeping the status quo intact.
Suffice to say, their "Disney Vault" promotional tactic couldn't exist in a world where (what most people consider) sane copyright laws existed, and I've yet to see an argument that reasonably suggests that kind of behavior is good for our culture.
I think this is orthogonal to the argument that I responded to upthread. The idea I responded to is that by rolling up so much of our popular culture, Disney has reached a point where it bears some kind of responsibility for vouchsafing our culture. Strong disagree: just like buying OMGPOP didn't reward Zynga with a mortal lock on the market for iPhone games, buying up the most popular media properties won't reward Disney with control of our culture.
Disney in reality has much less control over our culture than many other companies, including many other media companies. The fact of their purchasing Lucasfilm doesn't change that. It's alarmist to suggest that owning Star Wars is going to give Disney some kind of undue influence. If anything, it's likely to improve that terribly corrupted and besmirched franchise.
I would not care, because Fox News is already much more influential than Disney is, and would not become that much more so simply by dint of owning some cartoon characters.
All I can tell you is that as a parent, I'm not seeing a lot of cultural signifiers I can trace back to Disney properties. Internet memes have a much greater impact on my middle schooler kids.
This is just my gut reaction, so treat it with the skepticism it deserves, but I don't think Disney's influence is necessarily visible in behavior. I think it's more likely to be a subtle adjustment to the unconscious Bayesian priors invoked in decision making.
Disney movies & cartoons promote certain characteristics of our culture that are already in effect, so how would you see it anyway? If you weren't really looking deeply at the issue, which I assume (excuse me for assuming) you aren't doing. This is very deep subject which requires lots of analytical thinking and human behaviour understanding.
Disney has the power and money to hire whole teams of psychologist to analyze how to very subliminally affect their movies in such a way that the merchandise etc will sell more, bringing more and more cash in their pockets.
Take for example Donald Duck (in the cartoons). He is always depicted as a unlucky main protagonist who is being ruled by the rich Scrooge. No matter what he does or how much he works, he never becomes in control of his own life, usually being controlled by the Rich Banker Uncle Scrooge.
This tells our children that no matter what you do, you will always be controlled by those who have more money and can tell you to do whatever they please. Not in so direct way, but in a more subtle way it creates a world view that keeps this model in it's current place.
But this is not the main point, the main point is that for Disney and these other big companies, money goes beyond anything. This affects deeply their moral values that are put into their products and what motivation is being the driving force behind producing their movies. It's not the great stories, or changing the world, but about money. This is not a good thing, from many viewpoints. They are not focusing on sustainability, but on maximizing their incomes. This is reflected to all those little children who watch their movies or cartoons.
Those who own Disney are those with great money in their pockets. They will want to keep us passive consumers who will be hooked into their stories (which many are just copies from folk tales, like the Lion King which a pretty much direct copy from the story of Kimba the White Lion) and sell us Toys & Fast Food.
Have you seen the movies these days ? It's all about selling more copies of DVD:s of the latest blockbuster movie to the parents of the children. First creating a need in these children to look up to these movies and characters, then telling them that there are toys, sugar & caffeine filled drinks and fast food available related to these characters, hooking them (literally with caffeine, sugar, fat) to these products and the feelings related to those.
Think about it. Really. Do you want Disney to be raising your children ?
Really? tectonic made all those arguments in one sentence, huh? Or did you just invent that?
Every American sits and stares passively at ABC television for about 6 hours per week, every week. It's totally silly to suggest that that could have any effect on culture though, right?
Yes, I think it's pretty silly to suggest that the average 6 hours of ABC television consumption is providing Disney with much control over our culture. ABC is led by the culture, not the other way around; that's why it (sort of) makes money for Disney.
Think about it with an analogy. Google is more valuable than Facebook, despite the huge amount of time people spend engaged with Facebook, because Google's users come to the site with a task that inherently equates with purchasing intent. It is possible to capture a great deal of people's attention without changing their decisionmaking process.
I dispute that there are many judgements people make that use Disney media properties as a resource. The Internet is already a far more influential force on our culture than any mass-media property is.
I think you underestimate the effect of repeated subtle messaging thrown into an otherwise innocuous storyline. If it wasn't effective, Coca Cola wouldn't have paid to have their product barely visible in the background of a scene in War of the Worlds, for example.
I don't estimate it highly, you're right about that. For your specific example, consider some other factors besides the intrinsic effectiveness of ambient product placement:
(a) Coca Cola employs many thousands of marketing people who must, to justify their salary, come up with venues to feature the Coke brand.
(b) Mass marketing is notoriously terrible with metrics, so it's not an extraordinary claim to suggest that maybe Coke is investing in some marketing that doesn't much help it.
(c) Coke's business model has as much to do with its distribution system --- the fact that they can get a Coke into the hands of virtually any person on the planet in minutes --- as it does with its brand.
(d) Copyrights and trademarks mean that motion pictures need to acquire the rights to feature many (in a Spielberg film, perhaps all) of the brands shown on screen, which creates a venue in which major brands like Coke are consulted as a matter of course simply because either they or their competitors need to be shown simply to create verisimilitude.
[This is also in response to your reply to my other comment] I can tell you that some of the television I watched as a kid had a very strong influence on my deepest subconscious philosophies, namely Star Trek TNG.
My biggest argument against media consolidation, though, is that I simply don't trust any one entity with significant centralized power. While Disney+Lucasfilm is probably a pretty good fit for business and entertainment reasons, the sheer size of the various conglomerates is astounding.
And don't think for a minute that there isn't blatant propaganda in some TV shows, even if the propaganda isn't coherent within a single media conglomerate. The example I found most bothersome was the justly canceled TV series "V", which had extremely overt xenophobic allusions to issues of the day, like illegal immigration and foreign policy.
I think I agree with this. In my experience with my 4- and 5-year-olds, the concepts/images they retain are completely character/personality driven. E.g. they love individual characters, but the larger messages are completely lost. I don't think pop cultural references started appearing until the Shrek series, which included a bunch of funny, adult pop culture references. I think they did this for a really simple reason: to make it easier for parents to take kids to the movies, and still get some laughs. Throwing in pop culture references makes the parents laugh, but kids pay no attention--they love the animation, expressions, sounds, etc. And parents are more likely to sit through repeated viewings because of this.
My kids get their "bearings" from their Judeo/Christian upbringing, both at home and at school. That is their "culture", not the characters they see in Disney movies. Looking over the list of recent Disney movies, the themes I pick out are "individuality, loyalty, determination, perseverance." All of which are reflective of our culture, and all of which fly completely over the heads of small kids.
"People" as in "some number of people somewhere"? Sure.
But people in general? I strongly doubt it. Hang out with some "non-technical people" (they will often helpfully describe themselves this way for you) while they use the computer sometime. If they didn't have Google, they might be able to get to Facebook, but that would be pretty much the boundary of the Internet for them.
Every browser has a built in search feature, which offers a variety of providers. IE doesn't default to Google.
I'm not sure why people here are acting as if Bing, Yahoo etc. don't exist and don't offer a decent service that would be adequate for the internet to continue functioning without Google.
We're not acting like that. We're saying it may as well be that way for most people. You and I would be fine if Google disappeared. We'd just switch our auto search to Bing/Duck Duck Go/Blekko and never look back. But most "non-technical" people are dependent on Google, and if they wanted to use Bing, they would have to either search "Bing" on Google and click the link in the results or find a nerd to set it up for them.
Real World Example: Some relative of my girlfriend set up her mom's computer to use Yahoo. But she has since been convinced that Google is better and she should use that. So what does she do? Every time she starts up her web browser, she types "google" into the Yahoo search box, clicks the link to go to the Google homepage, then does her search there.
People can learn. It's not like they would never be able to use their computers again. They'd call their daughter and she'd be like "oh, click on that little arrow and click on 'yahoo'".
Yeah, if any major service that millions of people used every day disappeared, there would be a period of adjustment. But that's all... a period of adjustment.
You? Me? Yes we could find things. However it would have a massive influence on how the internet works.
It's like Bear Grylls or some other "survivalist" who knows how to pick berries in the woods and make a shelter laughing at the idea that a breakdown in modern argiculture would have an effect on the world.
There are people, a LOT of people, who literally think Google IS the internet. If they can't get to Google in a web browser, they think the internet is broken; "I can't get to my internet!" And they know of no other portal thereto.
Just ask some folks over age 55 or so. You'll find this user mindset is very common.
So the obsession many young girls have with Disney princesses, sometimes carrying it into adulthood (that makes for some very interesting conversations), has no influence on the narrative structure those girls are using to evaluate their lives?
No. The Disney Princess "narrative" simply fits into preexisting gender norms. There was no "Disney Princess" culture in the 1950s. If you created a chart showing the trendlines of female mobilization into the workforce (and particularly the "professions") and the revenue extracted from Disney Princess offerings, you'd have a concrete reason to question the assumption you're making here.
the narrative structure that people respond to is objective and possibly derived from ancient myths. disney follows this structure rather than invent it.
I was personally deeply shocked recently, when I sat with my children as they were watching the animated Iron Man series at their grandpas house. This was on Sunday morning TV.
The episode was about other 'bad' characters stealing Iron Mans suit. I was alarmed when the dialog turned explicitly to talk of Patents and how evil it was that they were infringing Iron Mans designs. As I continued to watch it dawned on me that the whole episode was just one big propaganda piece.
Disneys dialog is present, right beneath our noses.
(i) Millions of kids saw that episode and went on to pirate movies and music anyways, because kids don't really derive their ethics from cartoon series, just like you & I aren't secretly animated by "Knowing is Half The Battle" from G.I. Joe. (http://www.joeheadquarters.com/joeendings.shtml)
(ii) The particular message you're suggesting Iron Man is "propagandizing" is so anodyne that it was the subject of a whole episode of Arthur on PBS.
Nah man,when my kids make a mistake (or almost make a mistake), I go out of my way to tell them how they could have avoided it; 9 times out of 10 I end the discussion with, "And now you know ..." before I realize what I'm saying :P
> Millions of kids saw that episode and went on to pirate movies and music anyways, because kids don't really derive their ethics from cartoon series
The point of such propaganda would not be to ensure that people don't pirate, but to plant the idea that doing so is morally bad, so that lobbying efforts in favor of IP protection laws seem morally legitimate.
Embarrassing and silly personal story that demonstrates how entertainment/media can influence kids.
When I was a little kid, Saved by the Bell was a really funny show. I loved watching it. I read books that had the same characters as well. In one of the books, one of the girls was saying she couldn't date a certain guy. Her friend asked her why not. She said it was because they were already friends, so it would be too strange to date.
For years after that, I thought it was a stupid idea to date friends. I thought I should only try to date strangers or acquaintances, which was hard because I was timid about that kind of stuff. My parents didn't even get involved because they didn't think it was important, and that I'd figure it out. So my dating record during high school was zero, and even during university, it wasn't going anywhere until very late in the game. During this time, I passed up on the opportunity to date many wonderful girls who were high in character, very attractive, etc, just because we were already friends. No, I had to find someone to date who was not yet a friend, except I couldn't get date-comfortable with girls without becoming friends first. What a stupid infinite loop.
It's a stupid and embarrassing story, but it did indeed happen. And as dumb as it is, I've only in the last few years overcome that completely illogical obstruction in my mind. Parents, talk to your kids about what they watch on TV, play on their PS3, and read in books. Ethics may or may not be impacted, but if behaviour can be impacted, I bet you ethics could be as well.
The PSA endings you linked to all seem to be sensible and somewhat obvious advice for children, like not to pet strange animals and to be nice to your friends. Similarly, the show Captain Planet had lessons about caring for the environment. I think this is qualitatively different from teaching kids about copyright law.
I totally disagree. I believe that television, cartoon series or not, can affect kid's ethics (and behaviour, etc.) when it comes to little things they may not already have guidance on. You know, commonplace stuff like downloading a pirated video. Messages like this may instill fear and / or soften them up for future arguments.
Is it really that tin foil hat-ish to suggest that Disney has a boat in this race, and might try to exert some influence through their content? Hey, maybe they aren't, but I definitely don't think it's terribly far-fetched to question it.
Attempts at societal manipulation are ever present in popular media... it's often subtle and overlooked. Often, characters treat certain ideas or positions dismissively, influencing people to think that their 'peers' believe in that way.
and then he jumped in his flying suit and flew around the city beating people up under his own sense of vigilante justice, all powered by the rubics cube sized nuclear reactor he has instead of a heart...
But you're worried about the influence of the talk of patent has on your kids?
Some people learn from the Bible and associated interpretations that if they pray hard enough, dead people can walk again, but more people learn that gays are evil. People are able to analogize from fiction, or did you think the moral of the Sour Grapes fable was not to taunt foxes?
The question isn't whether it's plausible or not-- this is Indiana Jones, after all. The question is whether it worked in the movie. The whole scene is bizarrely out of place and is making light of something that most people don't think is really all that funny.
In a similar vein, there's nothing wrong with funny characters necessarily, but there is something wrong with Jar Jar.
Well, they might not give a shit but a story does stick. Same goes for that whole Chronicles of Narnia sagia, which is criticized for containing too many biblical references.
I don't think lightly of these things, as in fact- reading is a way of brainwashing too.
What we watch, this is what we become. Even thought you might think that Disney doesn't have great influence over our children or us, think about this scenario:
Small kids in front of television or in the movie theater, watching a movie. Thinking inside their young brains, what is happening on the screen. Seeing social interactions of Role Models that are not real, and then thinking "So this is how adults behave".
Thinking about how they would re-act in the same situation, then seeing that this "Cool Guy In The Movie Did That" and thinking that "Maybe I should try to do the same thing".
Even the most little things in cartoons and movies can trigger this kind of thinking and re-thinking in us, making us believe that "I should be like that, if I want to be cool" or some other situation.
We might want to deny this control over our lives, as we all want to be masters of our selves. But this shit gets into our subconsciousness and affects the way we act in real life. We might even not recognize it, as it has been part of our programming from the very beginning of our lives, watching these cartoons and believing shit like "A princess should marry a prince on a white horse".
Movies and cartoons have very much influence over behavioral patterns in our life.
This Lucasarts & Disney merge is worrying. Add in another great programmer of children, McDonalds, and we have (already) a culture of children who have been raised on cartoon & movie values, fed by McDonalds and educated by a broken education system and adults who don't know better.
Disney & McDonalds working together to program and feed our children. A Reality which I wouldn't want to see happen, but is already happening. What can we do ?
Ignore them. Create counter-culture. Educate our children ourselves. Free us from this kind of mass programming.
Remember, Britney Spears is also part of the Disney empire. Want your kid to look up to this kind of idols, who promote Sugary Cola Drink, Fast Food and Over Sexuality ?
Fortunately, corporations are pretty shitty at deliberately pushing a cultural agenda. I dare you to find a consistent agenda in any media conglomerate's output.
Really? I'm not being sarcastic at all. Please share.
EDIT: Despite Fox News, the Fox network broadcasts left-leaning shows like The Simpsons, Family Guy, and American Dad, which regularly mock Fox News. 20th Century Fox distributes a lot of films without any discernable agenda[1], even backing films like Avatar, or the Wall Street sequel. I'm convinced that News Corporation is entirely mercenary in its agenda and only started Fox News because right-wing cable news was a wide open opportunity in the late 1990's.
Like I said in my response to the parent, a corporation does not need to have media outlets in order to have an influence on political discourse. This is especially true for mega-corps with CEOs whose net worth are in the billions.
News Corp owns Fox News, which is stridently right-wing, but also the Fox network, which broadcasts more left-leaning shows like The Simpsons, Family Guy, and American Dad. In fact, Fox's prime time cartoons regularly mock Fox News.
>>News Corp owns Fox News, which is stridently right-wing, but also the Fox network, which broadcasts more left-leaning shows like The Simpsons, Family Guy, and American Dad. In fact, Fox's prime time cartoons regularly mock Fox News.
Except for the fact that Fox News is (unfortunately) taken seriously by millions of Americans and therefore has much more power over political discourse, whereas shows like Simpsons and Family guy are satire.
>>Koch isn't a media company.
It literally doesn't matter. If you think a corporation has to have media outlets in order to affect cultural and political discourse, you are either living under a rock or just hopelessly naive.
For someone saying "try again" you are awfully ignorant of News Corp and its business which is promoting a right-wing agenda worldwide.
It owns News Limited, News International which are dominate right-wing newspapers/websites in Australia and UK respectively. Foxtel and BSkyB which are the PayTV equivalent in Australia and UK. Wall Street Journal and Fox News which is influential in the US. It has also its hands in tonnes of other media assets:
Sure, right-wing tabloids are a market niche that News Corporation specializes in. I still don't see a consistent agenda or ideology, though.
And it's hard to call News Corp's entertainment properties a "tiny sideshow" when 20th Century Fox distributes a fair chunk of Hollywood's output, when three out of the four most popular sports leagues in the world are broadcast by either Fox or Sky Sports, and when Fox is easily one of the more successful TV networks in the United States.
Have you read about goings on in the UK print media over the last few months? There is a consistent pattern of behavior in Murdoch's empire within the UK.
What do you think Rupert Murdoch's agenda is with Glee? I don't know if you've worked at a huge company like News Corp, but the Fox News unit runs separately from Fox Broadcasting with its own separate agenda and personality, which is yet again removed from the newspapers.
Pretty much all of them seem fairly consistently "pro establishment". Sure you'll see a lot of inconsistency in left vs right wing politics coming out of most companies in this class, but the underlying message is pretty damn uniform.
Uniformity is comforting. The alternative is challenging. These are billion-dollar properties: they survive based on mass appeal. What's the mass media property that doesn't capitalize in some way on the status quo? What are you really asking for here? A version of Mulan where the heroine dies in a hail of arrows? The Suite Life With Zack And Cody's Meth Habit? Even The Daily Show only works as entertainment because it has mass entertainment to feed off of.
Don't get me wrong, if I were in charge of those companies I would be a fool to try to run them any differently. All I am saying is that whatever the reason (be it deliberation, market forces, or something else entirely) these companies are capable of putting out a consistent message, provided you look at it from a certain perspective.
I suppose you could say I am stretching the meaning of "agenda". Non-deliberate messages, which most of the "pro establishment" stuff probably is, probably doesn't really qualify as agenda now that I think about it.
Sure. I'm just suggesting that this may be a variant of the post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy. Media companies don't drive the consistency of the culture; they simply feed on the enormous latent drive to comforting conformity that's hardwired into our species.
It doesn't matter that not all the properties fall in line with Fox News' agenda. That Fox News has a huge influence is undeniable, and the rest of News Corps news and pundit properties fall in line with that. The entertainment divisions simply put money in the pot.
> It doesn't matter that not all the properties fall in line with Fox News' agenda
It matters in the sense that a media conglomerate can't consistently act in concert to effect cultural change, which was the original question. But I think you're being insufficiently cynical if you don't think the news properties are there to put money in the pot, too.
Before Fox News was launched, the overwhelming sentiment among conservative Americans (who, let's not forget, make up about half the country) was that other news sources had a liberal bias. It was an obvious opportunity to exploit.
In the UK/Australia, News Limited has been heavily involved through its newspapers in dictating government policy. For example the "boat people" issue was very much promoted in Australia and in the UK there are countless examples of governments capitulating on policy at the behest of the News International papers.
I'm not denying that News Corporation is influential, I just think the primary motivation is profit rather than an actual desire to see through any kind of political agenda.
Tony Blair is the godparent of one of Mirdoch's children. Those two deserve each other with their insidious and seedy behavior. Profit may be a motivation for them both, however Murdoch is far more clever and manipulative than Blair and his agenda would hardly be hurt by having the PM as a godparent to his kid.
Murdoch absolutely uses his news properties to influence politics and government policy. I don't deny that News Corp may be primarily a profit-motivated division. But you do realize that the policies Murdoch wants to influence lead to more profits, right? Even if the cultural effect is a side effect, it is a result of a motivated corporate agenda. And the reason it happens is because the corporations are so big and rich, and therefore influential, and therefore powerful.
"I'm convinced that News Corporation is entirely mercenary in its agenda and only started Fox News because right-wing cable news was a wide open opportunity in the late 1990's."
This might be more plausible if their News wing didn't represent the interests of its Founder.
Really? The Fox network alone has animated sitcoms that make fun of Fox News. Can you find a "well controller message" in the list of 20th Century Fox films?[1] The fact is, Newscorp is the most mercenary of them all, and only gets flack because they were so aggressive about seizing the right-wing cable news niche.
Most of these companies are a conglomerate of entertainment subsidiaries - i.e. Viacom (Paramount, MTV, Nickelodeon), Time Warner, NBC Universal / Comcast.
That said, Disney has seen a pretty steady increase in revenue (~5-6%) over the past few years.
I recently visited the Disney Hollywood Studios in Florida. There they have a Indiana Jones live action show as well as a Star Wars exhibit of some kind, I saw little kids dressed in Padawan outfits and getting to fight Darth Vader with a lightsaber (yes, looked pretty cool).
I was surprised at seeing Lucasfilm licensing these valuable properties to Disney for use in a theme park. I guess the two companies have been working together for years.
They also do the Jedi Training Academy show at Disneyland in California. It's a great production and just fits perfectly with the rest of the feel of Disneyland.
I agree. After we visited Disneyland this year with my kids, I looked up the profit to Disney from movies vs theme parks, and they make a lot more profit on theme parks than movies. So, you could consider that the media arm is just an advertisement to get people to visit Disneyland/World parks.
I think that this deal, like the Pixar one, brings in something that Disney hasn't been able to create on it's own for a long time - enduring and loved characters. It's all very well trying to get a 5 year old to be 'into' Mickey Mouse, but they are far more interested in Buzz Lightyear or Nemo or Lightning McQueen.
Disney itself hasn't been very good at 'coining' characters for a while, and there is no doubt the real cream is in the merchandising. A successful movie, therefore, is not just about getting box office, but also in spawning characters that can become cashcows.
Disney has always been a merchandizing company at heart. It understood, and understands, the value of brands better than any other entertainment company on the planet. LucasFilm is the same way; George Lucas has always been a savvy merchandizer. This is not only a good portfolio acquisition for Disney, but also a good cultural match.
They'll probably keep the LucasFilm roll there as it will still be their studio producing most of it. But what should really bother you is the Disney intro with Tinkerbell flying around. That's going to look highly inappropriate...
That brings up a good point. Die-hard Star Wars fans have been begging Lucasfilm to release the "unspecial" editions of the original trilogy for many years. IIRC Lucasfilm claims the original negatives were permanently altered when the special editions were made...but certainly no editor could be so careless? It's possible the original negatives still exist and Disney will eventually release them.
LFL released the original-unaltered-trilogy in 2006 as bonus DVDs to stand alongside the 2004 releases of the Special Editions. They used the D1 Maser Tapes created for the 1993 Definitive Collection laserdisc set, so they're (technically) better than the aforementioned laserdiscs.
With that being said, the image quality suffers from horrible smearing caused by 1993-era DVNR and colors are severely desaturated. Furthermore, the release was rushed and reeks of an inexperienced restoration team. For more information, see: http://savestarwars.com/gout.html
It is held by many to be the worst DVD release of all time.
It doesn't matter if the original film elements exist or not.
Many different early-generation film elements exist, such as internegatives and interpositives, all of which are capable of yielding resolutions much higher than 2K (or even 4K) with the right equipment.
Furthermore, many hundreds (or even thousands) of the theatrical 35mm and 70mm film reels still exist for all three films. (They're in the hands of private collectors and LFL.) Sure, they're beat to hell, but a restoration team worth its weight should be able to handle such a job if the situation were so dire.
> I’ve always believed that Star Wars could live beyond me, and I thought it was important to set up the transition during my lifetime.
This is effectively Lucas' slow decent into retirement; he's not actively directing Episode 7 but instead consulting. Say what you want about the movies and franchises, ILM and Skywalker Sound are gold standards created by a tech visionary.
Even more shocking:
"That will be followed by Episodes 8 and 9 – and our long term plan is to release a new Star Wars feature film every two to three years"
Wasn't the lore of Lucas having the entire series 'practically written/envisioned' debunked after people saw how the 'new' trilogy turned out? (ex. metachlorian)
Yes. I recommend _The Secret History of Star Wars_ - as a longtime EU fanatic, I was shocked how many pieces fell into place reading it.
(Incidentally, the narrative of _The Secret History_ means that this sale is particularly interesting; we can see the sale as the definitive death of Lucas's youthful dream of a paradise for indie filmmakers like he was, who were going to revolutionize the staid Hollywood establishment of bloated corporate giants like Disney, the dream which motivated him to produce sequels to the standalone movie _Star Wars_ as cash cows.)
I was a child when the original Star Wars came out, and I was never under the impression that the entire triple trilogy had already been written, though it was always supposed to be nine movies. If anything, he had an idea for its direction, but in hindsight I think that was more salesmanship on his part.
Every two to three years as a long term strategy? All they need to do is get on the super hero kick movie model.
1. Publish Trilogy
2. Reboot
3. Repeat
Supposedly Lucas himself at one time thought about eps 7-9 as another trilogy.
There is also the extended universe (which has traditionally been recognized as canon) that is quite clear about what happened after Return of the Jedi, so there's plenty of material, assuming they don't toss away the entirety of the extended universe...
It's true. I remember just before Empire Strikes Back was released the Detroit Free Press had a full-color section insert with movie artwork and interviews with the movie creators. George Lucas said the cadence was to be episodes 4-6, then 7-9, and then 1-3. If anyone has that newspaper section I'd love to see it again.
Lucasfilm is actually pretty cavalier about the extended universe. I went back to read some of those books after some of the prequels came out, and quickly learned two things. First, those books are, for the most part, terrible. Second, the EU actually established a backstory about the Death Star that was totally ignored when Lucas went to write his own backstory.
That series would seem to have the highest probability of happening, but I hope they move away from numerical episode numbering and toward just movie Titles like "Star Wars Heir to the Empire" because titles like "Star Wars Episode 6.625 Wraith Squadron" are just silly.
I look forward to Plinkett's evisceration of the Thrawn trilogy's mothball fleet of 200 dreadnoughts all slaved to one ship that can be effectively operated by a skeleton crew.
Sadly the best Star Wars books I know are Brian Daley's Han Solo Trilogy and the X-Wing books by Michael Stackpole. Both are light on Jedis and not likely to get made into films.
I know that the Hero with a 1000 Faces heavily influenced the first Trilogy, but I think some of the light on Jedi story lines have a lot to offer as well since they doesn't put so much focus on hero heavy mythology and can give more attention to the flaws of men (and women) (human, droid or otherwise) as the basis of a story. These stories have the potential to explore themes like those in Bladerunner, Alien(s), etc.
My thoughts exactly when hearing of the news, but I doubt it'd actually happen :( They'd probably have to get rights from Zahns publisher or Dark Horse or whomever owns it, I'd think. I don't think this purchase counts as an umbrella IP grab for all offshoots too?
If they can afford Lucasfilm, they can surely afford to license Zahn's books. (Assuming Lucasfilm didn't already have the right to film them, which they might, if they thought to insert the right language into the book contracts.)
I've been really disappointed that the expanded universe hasn't been explored more. There is so much more to Star Wars than just the stories surrounding Luke and Anakin as the protagonist.
I have fond memories of reading some of the expanded universe books as a kid and I'm disappointed that none of them have gotten attention as potential future movies.
I remember thinking the Thrawn trilogy was great. A few months ago I found the trilogy at a library sale and picked then up for a couple bucks for nostalgia's sake. They are awful too. And you are right, the ones by Anderson were worse.
Actually, I'm not sure the novelizations of those would suck. It's been ~30 years since I've read a Star Wars book, granted, but AFAIK the original novel, which was credited to George Lucas himself (as if), was ghost-written by Alan Dean Foster -- who I believe was actually consulting with Lucas while the movie was in production, and had some influence on what we actually saw on screen. Foster wrote a sequel to Star Wars called Splinter of the Mind's Eye which was originally intended to be the story used for the second movie.
Having said all that, I would put fairly high odds on Disney ignoring the "Expanded Universe" stuff and actually going with whatever Lucas claims was his original idea for episodes 7-9, unless the ideas suck so much that they think they'll be box office flops.
Having read almost all expanded universe books up to the late ninties, yes I completely agree that the books by Timothy Zahn a by orders of magnitude the best source for episodes 7 - 9. Just afraid that they will be completely ignored. If they are using books I asume it will some crap written by Kevin J. Anderson or something based on George Lucas own ideas.
Funny thing is that Lucas Films always had the more or less final say in which stories and books were written only to ignore a lot of the back-story for episodes 1 - 3.
While I'm kind of happy to see some more Star Wars movies coming, I'm actualy scared what they will look like. Propably some of the later New Jedi Order stories (since the original actors are a littel old by now) which will suite much better to the target populace. Tjis doesn't necessarily have to be something bad, but I'm not yet convinced...
That'd be simply too much of a liability. Yes, the authors of those books signed away rights to their stories to the publishers, and the publishers to Lucasfilm Ltd., but how well written were those contracts? Did they miss anything? Are you absolutely sure that every clause is enforceable? As there is literally a billion dollars on the line, I expect there would be no shortage of greedy lawyers calling up struggling ghost writers and struggling trying to make a case even if there isn't one.
I don't know what the new trilogy will be about (except it will probably have C3PO and R2D2, and Chewbacca makes a cameo). The one thing I am absolutely certain of is that none of it will be drawn from the expanded universe.
Let's not forget they paid that 7 billion in 2006. I can almost see this as Disney trying to replace the eye for talent and negotiating power they lost in Steve Jobs' passing, along with an amazing IP acquisition.
Edit: Thought of better terms than "creative force".
Probably the wrong choice of words. He did help bring in a lot of creative people, however. I'm just wondering if this will follow the same line of thinking - there's quite a lot of talented people who work for the Lucas properties.
Do you think so? To my mind, the set of people in that industry, as creatives, who would think "Hmm, I dunno. I'm not really sold / excited about the idea of working for Disney / Pixar / Lucasfilm... Oh, Steve Jobs is involved? That changes ... everything." (sorry, couldn't resist).
These companies appear, at least to me, as the pinnacle of "career as a creative artist in film" employers - I doubt the personality of a board member / part-owner, even one with as much going for him as Jobs did, was ever the deciding factor in their ability to lure talent.
Just one example of how he may have indirectly lured more talent than it may seem possible:
Jobs was the main driver of the creation of the innovative-layout of the Pixar HQ building. Lassater himself said that he truly believed that the way the building was structured led to better collaboration and creativity -- ie. a better environment, which would drive more people.
It's not that people think, "Jobs is involved -- yay!" Rather it's the culture that Jobs helped create and helped nurture that people would find attractive. Many, many other leaders with different priorities would likely end up inadvertently squashing the open collaboration and creativity that made Pixar successful to begin with, rather than nurture it, preventing success and preventing new talent from choosing Pixar.
So true, but somehow a lot of people don't know it. He was just a facilitator at Pixar. A damn good facilitator, one who made it all happen, but still he wasn't Pixar's visionary (like he was Apple's). Lasseter deserves all the credit for that part.
Actually you're wrong on that part. Steve was the visionary.
He was the one who saw Pixar as being a brand (i.e. a modern day Disney) rather than just an anonymous studio. Kids are buying and trusting the Pixar brand not the Disney brand. So to be able to set that all up (e.g. equal billing) required a vision for what the company could be.
Steve was responsible for Pixar. John was responsible for Pixar's movies.
Um, didn't the real history go slightly differently?
Steve Jobs invested in Pixar because of the hardware. When that didn't fly, the shorts and commercials being done by Lasseter (that paid the bills) turned into a gamble to make a full-length movie. This whole "branding" thing didn't come until the first movie was a success.
I would suggest that visionary is never having the prediction of exactly how it will turn out but having the faith that this is the right direction and the details will resolve in time
Although Jobs' negotiation with Disney wrt distribution included the concession from Disney that the Pixar logo would be of the same size and prominence as the Disney one. As far as I'm aware this was pretty much unheard of.
Pixar was the success coming from the genius and hard work of three people:
- Ed Catmull for all the tech
- Steve Jobs for the money, the vision through a dark maze and negotiating the first deal with Disney (Toy Story). Yes, he had second guesses, yes, Pixar almost became a division of Philips, etc
- John Lasseter. CalArts. Kicked out of Disney for believing computers were the future, 'hanged in there' at Pixar, as an 'Interface Designer', responsible for giving the human touch to Pixar movies, even the first ones (Luxo Jr, Adventures of Andre and Wally B - pre Pixar) probably helped Steve Jobs 'see the light' on Pixar
Star Wars merchandise and expanded universe rights will generate an insane revenue stream (Legos, Video Games, DVD re-releases. . Hasboro toys, books, etc.) on top of a new movie coming out in 2015 that will only supercharge those streams.
On top of that, you get extra bonuses such as Indiana Jones and all its associated merchandising.
Disney just bought itself a nice constant revenue stream that will keep generating golden eggs so long as Star Wars remains a core part of American culture.
As much as the idea of Ep. 7 pains me, I wouldn't mind seeing Brad Bird direct it. He took another classic franchise that I had grown to hate (Mission: Impossible), and made it fun again. He also has close ties to Disney/Pixar.
M:I Ghost Protocol was probably the most cartoonish thing that Brad Bird has done. I recently re-watched The Incredibles and... yeah, I can totally see him making a redemptive Episode VII.
It means they bought LucasArts too. Not that LucasArts were great in the last decade or so but Disney sucks as a "parent" for game dev companies (RIP Blackrock).
LucasArts hasn't existed in any real capacity for the last five years or so anyway, they've just been a licensing house. At least under Disney there is the possibility of finding some talent (unlikely, but possible).
Maybe. The problem is that Disney has so many parts of the company that are highly profitable (Marvel cinematic, Pixar, Disney proper, their many other movie studios, and now Lucasfilm) that it can be comparatively difficult to direct resources at smaller efforts. This is a problem at big companies like Microsoft and Google as well. Something that might flourish if it were let loose as an independent startup can easily languish at a company that has bigger fish to fry.
(for context, note that they've been explicitly tagging their name on all their kids fare, especially stuff based on public domain or historical sources)
I think the point is that Disney will be behind the movies now. As a fan, I am more in fear of horrible, time wasting movies, Disney is known for making sequels to just try and make some extra money out of a series. Star Wars is a jackpot for that. While some more honorable fans will not see the movies, most fans will regardless because they have to at least see the new movies otherwise they wouldn't be fans anymore.
I'm hopeful that through Disney the series will get an awesome reboot. Look how good the Marvel Comics movies have been since the Disney acquisition in 2009.
(Iron Man 2, Captain America, The Avengers all awesome)
Joe Johnston is my number one choice for an Episode VII. Many people could probably capture the spirit of the original trilogy, Johnston definitely would.
For those who don't know, he was a concept and storyboard artist on the original trilogy. He also directed Captain America, which on my second viewing I realized was far more Star Wars than any movie set during WWII has any right to be.
There are plenty of great things about the new trilogy, even if there are missteps too. Lucas was making the films he wanted to make, and whatever happens it seems unlikely Disney will be producing films with such a deeply anti-corporatist, anti-imperialist and pacifist message:
That said, Lucas is a self-reliant guy who bootstrapped his company and deserves his success. So it is good to see him get a sale like this if he wants it. And this move will probably keep his legacy alive for much longer than if he had to keep running it himself.
300 comments
[ 6.2 ms ] story [ 141 ms ] threadAlso, funny how life works. Pixar, a spin-off of Lucasfilm back in the 90's "acquires" Lucasfilm. Am I right in saying that Disney's movie division is headed/managed by the Pixar guys?
2. Die in a Fire
Hey that's my line. I've been coding for 32 years.
Sort of. John Lasseter is head of creative at both Pixar and Disney Animation. I think Disney may have other movie divisions.
Check out the image on their corporate site, it looks like Lucas is worried about his cat being held hostage to force him to sign: http://thewaltdisneycompany.com/
I wouldn't count on it. Just look at the absurdity that is the "Disney Vault."
Watch The Pixar Story (streaming on Netflix: http://movies.netflix.com/WiMovie/The_Pixar_Story/70083532?l...), and tell me you're not more comfortable with Star Wars in their hands then in Lucas'.
Now if they re-release the original Star Wars as it originally appeared without George Lucas' later additions, then I'll get excited.
I wonder if it will follow the book "Star Wars: The Truce at Bakura", which takes place immediately after Episode 6. http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/The_Truce_at_Bakura
Does anyone know if that 100% is literal? That he didn't give away ANYTHING, even for a pool for employees?
Half of it is cash, that is $2.025B. Represents an a pretty healthy chunk of cash on top of the $2B in Disney stock. It will be interesting to see what he does next.
He should start with focus ultrasound. It allows to grow/shrink any part of the body and so essentially reach immortality.
Oh yeah, it's real, black magic hasn't gone anywhere. Where do you think the ritual sacrifices would have disappeared ?
I don't believe the subsidiaries (Skywalker Sound, LucasArts, ILM, etc) are wholly owned by Lucasfilms.
Sony is not a distribution platform, ok. Apple is, ok. ESPN is mission critical for all cable platforms, ok. Dis by proxy, ok.
None of these statements are false but none of them lead me to think Apple wants to own any of these content businesses.
If Apple was going to buy any content company it's pretty obvious that they would have bought Pixar. Instead Steve sold Pixar to Disney. Now you're telling us that Disney's owning of these properties like Pixar is terrible for Apple but it doesn't fit the observed data.
You're too focused on Apple, and not focused on the companies defending their positions against Apple. The big threats to Hollywood are: (1) Hulu; (2) Netflix; (3) Apple.
Valuation: (1) $1-2B (2) $10B (3) $6-700B > Notice the orders of magnitude.
Strategy: (1) Hulu - kill by benign neglect (this is done) (2) Netflix - starve of tier 1 content (this is done) (3) Apple - keep them out of the game (this is in process)
Right now, Apple themselves are more focused on SV (google, fb). But Apple has the ability to do things (1) and (2) cannot do, <should they want to> due to size ($100B cash?).
Thus, strategies to kill (1) and (2) don't work (against apple). The best way to 'win' is to never let them into the game.
Hollywood/RIAA will use a combination of vertical-integration, regional oligopoly, and legislation to protect their cash-cow businesses, just common sense.
Hollywood doesn't want to kill Hulu (which it owns) or Netflix any more than it wants to kill Wal-Mart or theater chains. The current threats to Hollywood profits are The Pirate Bay and YouTube and to a lesser extent RedBox. Netflix was briefly in a very favorable contract regime but that didn't last very long at all.
"The best way to 'win' is to never let them into the game."
This entire argument rests on the idea that Apple wants to "be in the game" -- i.e. become a big content company -- but that's what I'm contesting. And the whole thing falls apart because if it's bad for Apple that Disney acquires more content then why did Jobs sell Pixar to Disney?
As for the rest, I think you mis-understand the logic.
The Hollywood's strategy doesn't hinge on Apple's beliefs. In the same way that the strategy in Chess of Black may be pursued absent White understanding it.
The greatest battles won, are those never fought
(to paraphrase Sun Tzu)
It used to be said tha Steve Jobs knew what a consumer wanted before he ever imagined it. It did not matter to Jobs if the consumer was unawares of the virtues of his future products. He built them anyway.
Similarly, when trying purchase financial assets, it is best to do your buying when the rest of the market does not understand your strategy. That keeps the price down, competition at bay, and the liquidity high.
Common sense says: this why hedge funds are secretive.
__________
[1] Don't think for a moment that this is not fully understood, by the owners.
For a company the size of Apple, to get into content production it would be less expensive and quicker for them to acquire than to build it in house.
And for any good partnership, there needs to be a Win-win on both sides. If Apple were to sabotage it's content agnosticism, would probably hurt it's mobile market share.
Google has much more control over our public dialog than Disney does.
Google and Disney clearly have two very different set of influences, but to imply that Disney has little control is simply wrong. Ultimately the buck stops with our various representatives, but Disney has some serious skin in the game of keeping the status quo intact.
Suffice to say, their "Disney Vault" promotional tactic couldn't exist in a world where (what most people consider) sane copyright laws existed, and I've yet to see an argument that reasonably suggests that kind of behavior is good for our culture.
Disney in reality has much less control over our culture than many other companies, including many other media companies. The fact of their purchasing Lucasfilm doesn't change that. It's alarmist to suggest that owning Star Wars is going to give Disney some kind of undue influence. If anything, it's likely to improve that terribly corrupted and besmirched franchise.
Good day to you sir.
Disney has the power and money to hire whole teams of psychologist to analyze how to very subliminally affect their movies in such a way that the merchandise etc will sell more, bringing more and more cash in their pockets.
Take for example Donald Duck (in the cartoons). He is always depicted as a unlucky main protagonist who is being ruled by the rich Scrooge. No matter what he does or how much he works, he never becomes in control of his own life, usually being controlled by the Rich Banker Uncle Scrooge.
This tells our children that no matter what you do, you will always be controlled by those who have more money and can tell you to do whatever they please. Not in so direct way, but in a more subtle way it creates a world view that keeps this model in it's current place.
But this is not the main point, the main point is that for Disney and these other big companies, money goes beyond anything. This affects deeply their moral values that are put into their products and what motivation is being the driving force behind producing their movies. It's not the great stories, or changing the world, but about money. This is not a good thing, from many viewpoints. They are not focusing on sustainability, but on maximizing their incomes. This is reflected to all those little children who watch their movies or cartoons.
Those who own Disney are those with great money in their pockets. They will want to keep us passive consumers who will be hooked into their stories (which many are just copies from folk tales, like the Lion King which a pretty much direct copy from the story of Kimba the White Lion) and sell us Toys & Fast Food.
Have you seen the movies these days ? It's all about selling more copies of DVD:s of the latest blockbuster movie to the parents of the children. First creating a need in these children to look up to these movies and characters, then telling them that there are toys, sugar & caffeine filled drinks and fast food available related to these characters, hooking them (literally with caffeine, sugar, fat) to these products and the feelings related to those.
Think about it. Really. Do you want Disney to be raising your children ?
Every American sits and stares passively at ABC television for about 6 hours per week, every week. It's totally silly to suggest that that could have any effect on culture though, right?
Think about it with an analogy. Google is more valuable than Facebook, despite the huge amount of time people spend engaged with Facebook, because Google's users come to the site with a task that inherently equates with purchasing intent. It is possible to capture a great deal of people's attention without changing their decisionmaking process.
I dispute that there are many judgements people make that use Disney media properties as a resource. The Internet is already a far more influential force on our culture than any mass-media property is.
(a) Coca Cola employs many thousands of marketing people who must, to justify their salary, come up with venues to feature the Coke brand.
(b) Mass marketing is notoriously terrible with metrics, so it's not an extraordinary claim to suggest that maybe Coke is investing in some marketing that doesn't much help it.
(c) Coke's business model has as much to do with its distribution system --- the fact that they can get a Coke into the hands of virtually any person on the planet in minutes --- as it does with its brand.
(d) Copyrights and trademarks mean that motion pictures need to acquire the rights to feature many (in a Spielberg film, perhaps all) of the brands shown on screen, which creates a venue in which major brands like Coke are consulted as a matter of course simply because either they or their competitors need to be shown simply to create verisimilitude.
My biggest argument against media consolidation, though, is that I simply don't trust any one entity with significant centralized power. While Disney+Lucasfilm is probably a pretty good fit for business and entertainment reasons, the sheer size of the various conglomerates is astounding.
And don't think for a minute that there isn't blatant propaganda in some TV shows, even if the propaganda isn't coherent within a single media conglomerate. The example I found most bothersome was the justly canceled TV series "V", which had extremely overt xenophobic allusions to issues of the day, like illegal immigration and foreign policy.
My kids get their "bearings" from their Judeo/Christian upbringing, both at home and at school. That is their "culture", not the characters they see in Disney movies. Looking over the list of recent Disney movies, the themes I pick out are "individuality, loyalty, determination, perseverance." All of which are reflective of our culture, and all of which fly completely over the heads of small kids.
I use a lot of non-Google owned web sites and services. Can you support this assertion?
But people in general? I strongly doubt it. Hang out with some "non-technical people" (they will often helpfully describe themselves this way for you) while they use the computer sometime. If they didn't have Google, they might be able to get to Facebook, but that would be pretty much the boundary of the Internet for them.
I'm not sure why people here are acting as if Bing, Yahoo etc. don't exist and don't offer a decent service that would be adequate for the internet to continue functioning without Google.
Real World Example: Some relative of my girlfriend set up her mom's computer to use Yahoo. But she has since been convinced that Google is better and she should use that. So what does she do? Every time she starts up her web browser, she types "google" into the Yahoo search box, clicks the link to go to the Google homepage, then does her search there.
Yeah, if any major service that millions of people used every day disappeared, there would be a period of adjustment. But that's all... a period of adjustment.
It's like Bear Grylls or some other "survivalist" who knows how to pick berries in the woods and make a shelter laughing at the idea that a breakdown in modern argiculture would have an effect on the world.
There are people, a LOT of people, who literally think Google IS the internet. If they can't get to Google in a web browser, they think the internet is broken; "I can't get to my internet!" And they know of no other portal thereto.
Just ask some folks over age 55 or so. You'll find this user mindset is very common.
Disneys dialog is present, right beneath our noses.
Best link to relevant episode: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armor_Wars#section_5
(i) Millions of kids saw that episode and went on to pirate movies and music anyways, because kids don't really derive their ethics from cartoon series, just like you & I aren't secretly animated by "Knowing is Half The Battle" from G.I. Joe. (http://www.joeheadquarters.com/joeendings.shtml)
(ii) The particular message you're suggesting Iron Man is "propagandizing" is so anodyne that it was the subject of a whole episode of Arthur on PBS.
The point of such propaganda would not be to ensure that people don't pirate, but to plant the idea that doing so is morally bad, so that lobbying efforts in favor of IP protection laws seem morally legitimate.
When I was a little kid, Saved by the Bell was a really funny show. I loved watching it. I read books that had the same characters as well. In one of the books, one of the girls was saying she couldn't date a certain guy. Her friend asked her why not. She said it was because they were already friends, so it would be too strange to date.
For years after that, I thought it was a stupid idea to date friends. I thought I should only try to date strangers or acquaintances, which was hard because I was timid about that kind of stuff. My parents didn't even get involved because they didn't think it was important, and that I'd figure it out. So my dating record during high school was zero, and even during university, it wasn't going anywhere until very late in the game. During this time, I passed up on the opportunity to date many wonderful girls who were high in character, very attractive, etc, just because we were already friends. No, I had to find someone to date who was not yet a friend, except I couldn't get date-comfortable with girls without becoming friends first. What a stupid infinite loop.
It's a stupid and embarrassing story, but it did indeed happen. And as dumb as it is, I've only in the last few years overcome that completely illogical obstruction in my mind. Parents, talk to your kids about what they watch on TV, play on their PS3, and read in books. Ethics may or may not be impacted, but if behaviour can be impacted, I bet you ethics could be as well.
Is it really that tin foil hat-ish to suggest that Disney has a boat in this race, and might try to exert some influence through their content? Hey, maybe they aren't, but I definitely don't think it's terribly far-fetched to question it.
But you're worried about the influence of the talk of patent has on your kids?
That's funny; another of Mr. Lucas' fine films taught me that you can survive a direct nuclear explosion by hiding in a discarded refrigerator.
http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/AtMovieIndyJones4.HTM
In a similar vein, there's nothing wrong with funny characters necessarily, but there is something wrong with Jar Jar.
I learned the exact opposite from Indiana Jones!
For a while, it seemed like "nuking the fridge" was going to replace "jumping the shark" as a metaphor for creative failure.
I don't think lightly of these things, as in fact- reading is a way of brainwashing too.
Small kids in front of television or in the movie theater, watching a movie. Thinking inside their young brains, what is happening on the screen. Seeing social interactions of Role Models that are not real, and then thinking "So this is how adults behave".
Thinking about how they would re-act in the same situation, then seeing that this "Cool Guy In The Movie Did That" and thinking that "Maybe I should try to do the same thing".
Even the most little things in cartoons and movies can trigger this kind of thinking and re-thinking in us, making us believe that "I should be like that, if I want to be cool" or some other situation.
We might want to deny this control over our lives, as we all want to be masters of our selves. But this shit gets into our subconsciousness and affects the way we act in real life. We might even not recognize it, as it has been part of our programming from the very beginning of our lives, watching these cartoons and believing shit like "A princess should marry a prince on a white horse".
Movies and cartoons have very much influence over behavioral patterns in our life.
This Lucasarts & Disney merge is worrying. Add in another great programmer of children, McDonalds, and we have (already) a culture of children who have been raised on cartoon & movie values, fed by McDonalds and educated by a broken education system and adults who don't know better.
Disney & McDonalds working together to program and feed our children. A Reality which I wouldn't want to see happen, but is already happening. What can we do ?
Ignore them. Create counter-culture. Educate our children ourselves. Free us from this kind of mass programming.
Remember, Britney Spears is also part of the Disney empire. Want your kid to look up to this kind of idols, who promote Sugary Cola Drink, Fast Food and Over Sexuality ?
EDIT: News Corp was what I was thinking.
EDIT: Despite Fox News, the Fox network broadcasts left-leaning shows like The Simpsons, Family Guy, and American Dad, which regularly mock Fox News. 20th Century Fox distributes a lot of films without any discernable agenda[1], even backing films like Avatar, or the Wall Street sequel. I'm convinced that News Corporation is entirely mercenary in its agenda and only started Fox News because right-wing cable news was a wide open opportunity in the late 1990's.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_20th_Century_Fox_films
News Corp is a better example.
Koch isn't a media company.
Try again.
Except for the fact that Fox News is (unfortunately) taken seriously by millions of Americans and therefore has much more power over political discourse, whereas shows like Simpsons and Family guy are satire.
>>Koch isn't a media company.
It literally doesn't matter. If you think a corporation has to have media outlets in order to affect cultural and political discourse, you are either living under a rock or just hopelessly naive.
It owns News Limited, News International which are dominate right-wing newspapers/websites in Australia and UK respectively. Foxtel and BSkyB which are the PayTV equivalent in Australia and UK. Wall Street Journal and Fox News which is influential in the US. It has also its hands in tonnes of other media assets:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_Corporation
Fox Studios is nothing but a tiny sideshow.
And it's hard to call News Corp's entertainment properties a "tiny sideshow" when 20th Century Fox distributes a fair chunk of Hollywood's output, when three out of the four most popular sports leagues in the world are broadcast by either Fox or Sky Sports, and when Fox is easily one of the more successful TV networks in the United States.
I suppose you could say I am stretching the meaning of "agenda". Non-deliberate messages, which most of the "pro establishment" stuff probably is, probably doesn't really qualify as agenda now that I think about it.
It matters in the sense that a media conglomerate can't consistently act in concert to effect cultural change, which was the original question. But I think you're being insufficiently cynical if you don't think the news properties are there to put money in the pot, too.
Before Fox News was launched, the overwhelming sentiment among conservative Americans (who, let's not forget, make up about half the country) was that other news sources had a liberal bias. It was an obvious opportunity to exploit.
In the UK/Australia, News Limited has been heavily involved through its newspapers in dictating government policy. For example the "boat people" issue was very much promoted in Australia and in the UK there are countless examples of governments capitulating on policy at the behest of the News International papers.
This might be more plausible if their News wing didn't represent the interests of its Founder.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_20th_Century_Fox_films
The alternative is likely to get them sued. This is not surprising.
That said, Disney has seen a pretty steady increase in revenue (~5-6%) over the past few years.
I was surprised at seeing Lucasfilm licensing these valuable properties to Disney for use in a theme park. I guess the two companies have been working together for years.
I think that this deal, like the Pixar one, brings in something that Disney hasn't been able to create on it's own for a long time - enduring and loved characters. It's all very well trying to get a 5 year old to be 'into' Mickey Mouse, but they are far more interested in Buzz Lightyear or Nemo or Lightning McQueen.
Disney itself hasn't been very good at 'coining' characters for a while, and there is no doubt the real cream is in the merchandising. A successful movie, therefore, is not just about getting box office, but also in spawning characters that can become cashcows.
Interesting history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Tours
Further watching: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1325014/
With that being said, the image quality suffers from horrible smearing caused by 1993-era DVNR and colors are severely desaturated. Furthermore, the release was rushed and reeks of an inexperienced restoration team. For more information, see: http://savestarwars.com/gout.html
It is held by many to be the worst DVD release of all time.
Many different early-generation film elements exist, such as internegatives and interpositives, all of which are capable of yielding resolutions much higher than 2K (or even 4K) with the right equipment.
Furthermore, many hundreds (or even thousands) of the theatrical 35mm and 70mm film reels still exist for all three films. (They're in the hands of private collectors and LFL.) Sure, they're beat to hell, but a restoration team worth its weight should be able to handle such a job if the situation were so dire.
For more information, see http://www.originaltrilogy.com/ and http://www.savestarwars.com/.
This is effectively Lucas' slow decent into retirement; he's not actively directing Episode 7 but instead consulting. Say what you want about the movies and franchises, ILM and Skywalker Sound are gold standards created by a tech visionary.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars_sequel_trilogy
Yes, I'm a bit of a nerd. Please don't get me started on Star Trek.
(Incidentally, the narrative of _The Secret History_ means that this sale is particularly interesting; we can see the sale as the definitive death of Lucas's youthful dream of a paradise for indie filmmakers like he was, who were going to revolutionize the staid Hollywood establishment of bloated corporate giants like Disney, the dream which motivated him to produce sequels to the standalone movie _Star Wars_ as cash cows.)
There is also the extended universe (which has traditionally been recognized as canon) that is quite clear about what happened after Return of the Jedi, so there's plenty of material, assuming they don't toss away the entirety of the extended universe...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrawn_trilogy
Sadly the best Star Wars books I know are Brian Daley's Han Solo Trilogy and the X-Wing books by Michael Stackpole. Both are light on Jedis and not likely to get made into films.
Whether they want to is another question.
I have fond memories of reading some of the expanded universe books as a kid and I'm disappointed that none of them have gotten attention as potential future movies.
Yeah, I did too. Piece of advice: don't go back and reread them. They're awful. At least the ones by Kevin J. Anderson.
To me, the Thrawn Trilogy is 'our only hope' of lucasarts getting this even close.
Having said all that, I would put fairly high odds on Disney ignoring the "Expanded Universe" stuff and actually going with whatever Lucas claims was his original idea for episodes 7-9, unless the ideas suck so much that they think they'll be box office flops.
Funny thing is that Lucas Films always had the more or less final say in which stories and books were written only to ignore a lot of the back-story for episodes 1 - 3.
While I'm kind of happy to see some more Star Wars movies coming, I'm actualy scared what they will look like. Propably some of the later New Jedi Order stories (since the original actors are a littel old by now) which will suite much better to the target populace. Tjis doesn't necessarily have to be something bad, but I'm not yet convinced...
I don't know what the new trilogy will be about (except it will probably have C3PO and R2D2, and Chewbacca makes a cameo). The one thing I am absolutely certain of is that none of it will be drawn from the expanded universe.
Six years ago, they paid $7B for Pixar.[1]
Pixar used to be a subsidiary of Lucasfilm.
This means that John Lasseter is now going to have control of all of the assets that allowed him to get into making movies in the first place.
[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixar#Acquisition_by_Disney
Edit: Thought of better terms than "creative force".
These companies appear, at least to me, as the pinnacle of "career as a creative artist in film" employers - I doubt the personality of a board member / part-owner, even one with as much going for him as Jobs did, was ever the deciding factor in their ability to lure talent.
Jobs was the main driver of the creation of the innovative-layout of the Pixar HQ building. Lassater himself said that he truly believed that the way the building was structured led to better collaboration and creativity -- ie. a better environment, which would drive more people.
It's not that people think, "Jobs is involved -- yay!" Rather it's the culture that Jobs helped create and helped nurture that people would find attractive. Many, many other leaders with different priorities would likely end up inadvertently squashing the open collaboration and creativity that made Pixar successful to begin with, rather than nurture it, preventing success and preventing new talent from choosing Pixar.
He was the one who saw Pixar as being a brand (i.e. a modern day Disney) rather than just an anonymous studio. Kids are buying and trusting the Pixar brand not the Disney brand. So to be able to set that all up (e.g. equal billing) required a vision for what the company could be.
Steve was responsible for Pixar. John was responsible for Pixar's movies.
Steve Jobs invested in Pixar because of the hardware. When that didn't fly, the shorts and commercials being done by Lasseter (that paid the bills) turned into a gamble to make a full-length movie. This whole "branding" thing didn't come until the first movie was a success.
Pixar was the success coming from the genius and hard work of three people:
- Ed Catmull for all the tech
- Steve Jobs for the money, the vision through a dark maze and negotiating the first deal with Disney (Toy Story). Yes, he had second guesses, yes, Pixar almost became a division of Philips, etc
- John Lasseter. CalArts. Kicked out of Disney for believing computers were the future, 'hanged in there' at Pixar, as an 'Interface Designer', responsible for giving the human touch to Pixar movies, even the first ones (Luxo Jr, Adventures of Andre and Wally B - pre Pixar) probably helped Steve Jobs 'see the light' on Pixar
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121018/01054720744/hollyw...
1.1B should be about it. But on paper for the tax man it's mostly like 500Mi loss
On top of that, you get extra bonuses such as Indiana Jones and all its associated merchandising.
Disney just bought itself a nice constant revenue stream that will keep generating golden eggs so long as Star Wars remains a core part of American culture.
http://www.rifftrax.com/rifftrax/star-wars-holiday-special
Does the original version work well with Modern Windows flavors?
Grim Fandango the movie, anyone?
(for context, note that they've been explicitly tagging their name on all their kids fare, especially stuff based on public domain or historical sources)
(Iron Man 2, Captain America, The Avengers all awesome)
http://redlettermedia.com/plinkett/star-wars/star-wars-episo...
For those who don't know, he was a concept and storyboard artist on the original trilogy. He also directed Captain America, which on my second viewing I realized was far more Star Wars than any movie set during WWII has any right to be.
I'd be tickled by a Brad Bird take as well.
http://homes.chass.utoronto.ca/~anne/clones.html
That said, Lucas is a self-reliant guy who bootstrapped his company and deserves his success. So it is good to see him get a sale like this if he wants it. And this move will probably keep his legacy alive for much longer than if he had to keep running it himself.