Fanboy Wars Thread: Personal Attacks not allowed | With Digital Fur Technology

[Walt Disney]

4 minutes ago, TMP said:

Not by any stretch of the imagination, unless you're a Disney shareholder, and even then that'll be in the long-run

Way to only quote part of the post. For James Cameron, it is a good thing. For people like you, I can imagine it is very annoying. But, you're in the minority.

Edited March 20, 2019 by Walt Disney

[CoolioD1]

8 minutes ago, Napoleon said:

After reading the reports about what Disney was doing to theater owners I don't understand why anyone who loves movies would call themselves a fan of that company. This is a company that clearly don't want to play fair. If you love your liberty of choice you just can't root for Disney. 

it's true i know a guy who runs an indie cinema everytime he tries to book a disney movie it comes with insane requests that are actively detrimental for him. 

[WittyUsername]

3 minutes ago, Walt Disney said:

Way to only quote part of the post. For James Cameron, it is a good thing. For people like you, I can imagine it is very annoying. But, you're in the minority.

Disney owning Fox should be annoying for pretty much anyone who’s passionate about film. 

[Walt Disney]

1 minute ago, WittyUsername said:

Disney owning Fox should be annoying for pretty much anyone who’s passionate about film. 

Why?

[TMP]

3 minutes ago, CoolioD1 said:

it's true i know a guy who runs an indie cinema everytime he tries to book a disney movie it comes with insane requests that are actively detrimental for him. 

Yeah, but it's better for my favourite soulless multi-billion conglomerate, so in the end that's all that should matter!

[The Futurist]

Streaming is the beginning of a new golden age for Art.

You read it first here.

 

[WittyUsername]

10 minutes ago, Walt Disney said:

Why?

Because in order for any industry to thrive in a capitalist society, there needs to be competition. Disney was already the top studio in Hollywood before all this, and now they’ve completely absorbed two other studios? That could have very negative ramifications for the film industry in the near future, especially if it leads to more studios shutting down. 

 

 Not only that, but this will inevitably mean that fewer movies will end up getting made, including fewer movies from Fox Searchlight, which is one of the most prestigious small time studios in Hollywood. Plus, since Disney is generally pretty keen on big franchises, this means that there will likely be less variety in the kinds of movies that get made moving forward.

Edited March 20, 2019 by WittyUsername

[MrGlass2]

9 minutes ago, Walt Disney said:

Why?

A major movie studio dying isn't good for movies, do you really need an explanation?

[Walt Disney]

1 minute ago, WittyUsername said:

Because in order for any industry to thrive in a capitalist society, there needs to be competition. Disney was already the top studio in Hollywood before all this, and now they’ve completely absorbed two other studios? Not only that, but this will inevitably mean that fewer movies will end up getting made, including fewer movies from Fox Searchlight, which is one of the most prestigious small time studios in Hollywood. Plus, since Disney is generally pretty keen on big franchises, this means that there will likely be less variety in the kinds of movies that get made moving forward.

There is competition. This deal does not prevent other studios from making movies. In fact, if you look at the overall number of releases, there are actually many more movies being made today than like 5 or 10 years ago (I can't remember where I read that statistic from, but I read it recently). It does mean a few less blockbusters will be made. But, that creates the opportunity for smaller movies to gain some market share.

 

If you're a big tentpole movie fan, it does mean a few less movies. If you're a movie fan in general, and want less tentpoles and sequels, then it can only help you because smaller studios can fill the void. I see the downside if you're a huge Fox fan. I don't see the downside if you're a Fox Searchlight fan, because Disney is letting them do their own thing. I also don't see the downside if you're passionate about cinema because it just creates opportunities for other movies to gain some success. There is no shortage of movies being made.

 

 

[Walt Disney]

5 minutes ago, MrGlass2 said:

A major movie studio dying isn't good for movies, do you really need an explanation?

Actually, it makes no difference, except to film-makers who only want to make big budget blockbusters. So yeah, a rational person would need an explanation.

[WittyUsername]

4 minutes ago, Walt Disney said:

There is competition. This deal does not prevent other studios from making movies. In fact, if you look at the overall number of releases, there are actually many more movies being made today than like 5 or 10 years ago (I can't remember where I read that statistic from, but I read it recently). It does mean a few less blockbusters will be made. But, that creates the opportunity for smaller movies to gain some market share.

 

If you're a big tentpole movie fan, it does mean a few less movies. If you're a movie fan in general, and want less tentpoles and sequels, then it can only help you because smaller studios can fill the void. I see the downside if you're a huge Fox fan. I don't see the downside if you're a Fox Searchlight fan, because Disney is letting them do their own thing. I also don't see the downside if you're passionate about cinema because it just creates opportunities for other movies to gain some success. There is no shortage of movies being made.

 

 

One less studio means that there will be less competition, and Disney will likely own roughly 40% of the market share because of this merger. Plus, nearly all of the movies that Disney releases are tentpole films. 

[Barnack]

1 hour ago, dudalb said:

Fact is that Murdoch decided, for his own reasons, to get out of the movie/tv entertainment providing business except for news and sports. It was not that Fox Studios were not profitable, but that Murdoch wanted to concentrate on what he felt was his core businesses;news and sports. Happens all the time.

 

Not sure what facts are enlightening who of what exactly (who do not know/think that the sellers of an asset decided to sell it ?)

 

A major studio being acquired by an other happened just once before pretty much in 100 year's.

 

Past[edit]

Past majors include:

• Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Pictures (1924–1986) became a mini-major studio; emerged from Chapter 11 bankruptcy on December 20, 2010.
• United Artists (1919–1981) acquired by MGM in 1981.
• RKO Pictures (1928–1959) defunct, then several times revived as independent studio; their latest films were released in both 2012 and 2015, respectively.
• 20th Century Fox (1935–2019) became a part of Walt Disney Studios when The Walt Disney Company bought 21st Century Fox for $71.3 billion.

 

Not one care if the stockholders sell their stock obviously, what happen with them purely decided by the buyers is what people care about.

 

[Walt Disney]

16 minutes ago, WittyUsername said:

One less studio means that there will be less competition, and Disney will likely own roughly 40% of the market share because of this merger. Plus, nearly all of the movies that Disney releases are tentpole films. 

The 40% market share is assuming Fox still makes the same number of movies, which I think we both agree that they won't. Also, market share just means that more people are paying to see those movies. That's not prohibiting competition. If MGM started making movies that everyone wanted to see, they'd have a bigger market share. 

 

One less studio means there could potentially be less competition. But again, competition isn't based on market share. It's based on how many studios are making movies, and there are still a lot of studios making movies. Sure they aren't as big as Fox, but they're still making movies. As an example, Spyglass is just starting up again. Smaller studios have problems getting their movies into theaters. So Fox making less movies helps those studios in that way. 

 

You're right, if no one wants to see those movies, but want to see Disney's tentpoles instead, then it is less competition. However, that's just the way the movie industry works. Netflix keeping people home watching movies instead of going to the theater is a similar competition killer. Ultimately, the Disney-Fox deal doesn't stop other studios from filling the void left by Fox. If Lionsgate makes more popular movies, they could end up filling Fox's void all by themselves.

 

However, if a person just hates Disney, and wants Fox there to beat Disney at the box office, that person is hugely hurt by this deal. That's one less studio making tentpoles that could attempt to cut Disney down to size. But I am positive the majority of people don't really care about that.

Edited March 20, 2019 by Walt Disney

[Walt Disney]

10 minutes ago, Barnack said:

 

 

A major studio being acquired by an other happened just once before pretty much in 100 year's.

 

Past[edit]

Past majors include:

• Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Pictures (1924–1986) became a mini-major studio; emerged from Chapter 11 bankruptcy on December 20, 2010.
• United Artists (1919–1981) acquired by MGM in 1981.
• RKO Pictures (1928–1959) defunct, then several times revived as independent studio; their latest films were released in both 2012 and 2015, respectively.
• 20th Century Fox (1935–2019) became a part of Walt Disney Studios when The Walt Disney Company bought 21st Century Fox for $71.3 billion.

 

Not one care if the stockholders sell their stock obviously, what happen with them purely decided by the buyers is what people care about.

 

That's not true about it just happening once. In the 1920's, there were 3 major studios: MGM, Paramount, and First National. Warner Bros. became a 4th major studio with the success of The Jazz Singer (first film with sound). They used their new found wealth to buy First National, which basically allowed Warner Bros. to be equal to MGM and Paramount.

 

Then there's the case of MGM. Technically, another big studio did not buy them, but something much worse happened. Ted Turner bought MGM in 1986. He kept MGM's pre April 1986 film library, sold their studio lot to Lorimar, and sold the rest of the studio back to its former owner. He basically gutted the studio. Then, he bought New Line Cinema and merged the MGM library and New Line Cinema with Time Warner.  So while Warner Bros. didn't buy MGM, they got the back catalog, which basically destroyed MGM (even though they still had the UA catalog). 

 

 

 

[Lordmandeep]

24 minutes ago, WittyUsername said:

One less studio means that there will be less competition, and Disney will likely own roughly 40% of the market share because of this merger. Plus, nearly all of the movies that Disney releases are tentpole films. 

 

 

I think this year is a turning point to the Disney Domination coming to the box office. 

[Barnack]

14 minutes ago, Walt Disney said:

There is competition. This deal does not prevent other studios from making movies. In fact, if you look at the overall number of releases, there are actually many more movies being made today than like 5 or 10 years ago (I can't remember where I read that statistic from, but I read it recently).

Is there, I mean there is over 10,000 movies a year made according to imdb, movie with a chance to be seen is what matter.

 

Movies of the 6 major release according to box office mojo

 

2000: 44 (Disney) + 46 (WB) + 15 (Universal) + 18 (Paramount) + 19 (Fox) + 42 (Sony) = 184

2004: 33 (Disney) + 42 (WB) + 21 (Universal) + 23 (Paramount) + 24 (Fox) + 39 (Sony) = 182

2008: 21 (Disney) + 32 (WB) + 25 (Universal) + 23 (Paramount) + 26 (Fox) + 39 (Sony) = 166

 

vs

2017:  8 (Disney) + 20 (WB) + 22 (Universal) + 13 (Paramount) + 25 (Fox) + 38 (Sony) = 126

2018: 10 (Disney) + 38 (WB) + 31 (Universal) + 10 (Paramount) + 16 (Fox) + 38 (Sony) = 143

 

I think there was some decline in studio release (much more so in production) now versus 10 year's ago, that said most of it could simply be explained by Disney output declined in volume by 60-75% in the 2000s.

 

Quote

 

It does mean a few less blockbusters will be made. But, that creates the opportunity for smaller movies to gain some market share.

 

 

Not sure about blockbuster, it is probably few less The Post/Widows/Bad TIme at the El Royale will be made, blockbuster and low budget affair are maybe the safer type here. It does not necessarily mean that more good non-for Disney+Fox movie screen in theater will be available for smaller movie to gain those market share, the power the entity will have over exhibition could possibly get quite huge.

[Warmaster506]

I think it's funny how surprised people are to find out companies like Microsoft ,Amazon, Apple and Google are much bigger than Disney.

 

Disney has uninformed people they are the biggest on the block. 

[WittyUsername]

16 minutes ago, Walt Disney said:

The 40% market share is assuming Fox still makes the same number of movies, which I think we both agree that they won't. Also, market share just means that more people are paying to see those movies. That's not prohibiting competition. If MGM started making movies that everyone wanted to see, they'd have a bigger market share. 

 

One less studio means there could potentially be less competition. But again, competition isn't based on market share. It's based on how many studios are making movies, and there are still a lot of studios making movies. Sure they aren't as big as Fox, but they're still making movies. As an example, Spyglass is just starting up again. Smaller studios have problems getting their movies into theaters. So Fox making less movies helps those studios in that way. 

 

You're right, if no one wants to see those movies, but want to see Disney's tentpoles instead, then it is less competition. However, that's just the way the movie industry works. Netflix keeping people home watching movies instead of going to the theater is a similar competition killer. Ultimately, the Disney-Fox deal doesn't stop other studios from filling the void left by Fox. If Lionsgate makes more popular movies, they could end up filling Fox's void all by themselves.

 

However, if a person just hates Disney, and wants Fox there to beat Disney at the box office, that person is hugely hurt by this deal. That's one less studio making tentpoles that could attempt to cut Disney down to size. But I am positive the majority of people don't really care about that.

I didn’t care about Fox as a studio, but they were still a major part of the film industry, and with them being absorbed into Disney, Disney has now secured an even bigger stronghold on the market share than they already had before. No matter how you slice it, that isn’t good for competition. 

Edited March 20, 2019 by WittyUsername

[Walt Disney]

2 minutes ago, Barnack said:

Is there, I mean there is over 10,000 movies a year made according to imdb, movie with a chance to be seen is what matter.

 

Movies of the 6 major release according to box office mojo

 

2000: 44 (Disney) + 46 (WB) + 15 (Universal) + 18 (Paramount) + 19 (Fox) + 42 (Sony) = 184

2004: 33 (Disney) + 42 (WB) + 21 (Universal) + 23 (Paramount) + 24 (Fox) + 39 (Sony) = 182

2008: 21 (Disney) + 32 (WB) + 25 (Universal) + 23 (Paramount) + 26 (Fox) + 39 (Sony) = 166

 

vs

2017:  8 (Disney) + 20 (WB) + 22 (Universal) + 13 (Paramount) + 25 (Fox) + 38 (Sony) = 126

2018: 10 (Disney) + 38 (WB) + 31 (Universal) + 10 (Paramount) + 16 (Fox) + 38 (Sony) = 143

 

I think there was some decline in studio release (much more so in production) now versus 10 year's ago, that said most of it could simply be explained by Disney output declined in volume by 60-75% in the 2000s.

 

 

Not sure about blockbuster, it is probably few less The Post/Widows/Bad TIme at the El Royale will be made, blockbuster and low budget affair are maybe the safer type here. It does not necessarily mean that more good non-for Disney+Fox movie screen in theater will be available for smaller movie to gain those market share, the power the entity will have over exhibition could possibly get quite huge.

Yeah, there is a decline in the amount of movies the big studios are putting out. I was more referring to what you mentioned in your first point about 10,000 movies a year being made. Disney will have more power over exhibition, but if less movies are made by big studios, that opens the door for small movies. The movie theaters have to play some movie in their theaters. They won't leave screens blank. 

[terrestrial]

52 minutes ago, Walt Disney said:

there are actually many more movies being made today than like 5 or 10 years ago

acc BOM - dom

1980 = 161 movies

1990 = 410 movies

2000 = 478 movies

2010 = 538 movies

2018 = 873 movies

 

acc The-Numbers.com in

2018 'only' 142 distributors released movies in the US

2010 = 152 distr.

2000 =  64 distr.

1995 =  37 distr.

Their charts do not go further into the past. Those numbers include e.g. 20th Cent. Fox and Fox searchlight as 2 different entries.

 

A lot of the problems said to be rooted in the big ones are actually based on too many films get made by too many ppl./companies. They take away from each other, hinder the development of some to increase up to midsize companies early on in my POV. Still I see the merger as not good. But as FOX did make the first step, WB, Universal/NBC are already in the hands of Teleominication/Internet... companies, a lot of additional sevices get added, like amazon, apple, Netflix... all want in and add even more content... So who was the alternative? Earnestly trying to biy: Comcast. That already owns too a lot of media outlets already.   Absolutely: each and every problem the cinemas have are based on one company (sarcasm)

 

Wide releases (2019 is a bit skewed as early on)

Number of Wide Releases Each Year

Find below information about the number of movies released wide each year.

      Edited March 20, 2019 by terrestrial