The Disney Thread: For Everything Concerning the House of Mouse
- Thread starter filmfanatic
- Start date
If they keep they R rating *hopefully*, HULU.
Avatar: We’re Making These Even Though No One Wants Them
*sheepishly raises his hand* Um, I do. I really like the first and wouldn't mind at least 1 or 2 sequels. The quality of those will depend if I'm down for even more.
Fair enough. I stand corrected.
I think I wouldn’t have such a strong negative reaction if they had announced one or two sequels instead of four!
Wait, that's not a joke post, like that fake Pixar timeline from a few years back?
Yikes.
From what I've read all of the contracts for the director, actors, etc would force Disney to pay a large bonus/penalty to them if the movie doesn't get a theatrical release. To the point where they're better off just throwing it out there for a few weeks with no marketing.
IMO being completely unoriginal isn't necessarily a bad thing, as long as it's done well. No new stories, etc. And arguably Cameron has a great track record doing exactly that.
And on that note, I find that there's something to be said for too original if you're going into every movie and expecting it to go sideways in some way, and when it doesn't, it surprises you. IMO something not being surprising but still being good is why you can re-watch things, as you still enjoy the process of something being done well, even if you've (literally) seen it before. This can extend to new works as well.
Basically, it's not good because it's new, and it's not bad because it's been done before either. Good almost-doesn't intersect that scale at all IMO.
I'm going to be honest, I've never seen Avatar. It looked kinda boring to me. And since I've never seen a big following for it, like Star Wars or even a cult following, I've never felt like I missed out. I have a feeling if I watch it now, it's going to be The Matrix all over again.
And by The Matrix, I mean back when it came out, everyone at my school was talking about how cool and amazing it was. It was a pop culture phenom, so once it was on video, I rented it to check it out. Now at the time, the only tv I had was one of those 12" or 15" tv/vcr combos that belonged to my roommate. When I watched it, the visuals were cool, but on such a small screen, you couldn't really be immersed in them, so that meant I relied on most dialogue and plot, and... they were pretty mediocre. I didn't hate it, but after watching it once I never cared if I saw it again. Probably why I fell asleep when we saw the 2nd Matrix in the theater years later.
All I've ever heard about Avatar are the visuals, which are, what 10 years old now? I never hear anyone talking about memorable characters or dialogue. Maybe some weird bird sex/flying, but that's about it.
And by The Matrix, I mean back when it came out, everyone at my school was talking about how cool and amazing it was. It was a pop culture phenom, so once it was on video, I rented it to check it out. Now at the time, the only tv I had was one of those 12" or 15" tv/vcr combos that belonged to my roommate. When I watched it, the visuals were cool, but on such a small screen, you couldn't really be immersed in them, so that meant I relied on most dialogue and plot, and... they were pretty mediocre. I didn't hate it, but after watching it once I never cared if I saw it again. Probably why I fell asleep when we saw the 2nd Matrix in the theater years later.
All I've ever heard about Avatar are the visuals, which are, what 10 years old now? I never hear anyone talking about memorable characters or dialogue. Maybe some weird bird sex/flying, but that's about it.
The 3D is where Avatar wow'd people. Even I felt that way and I have poor depth perception. So seeing it out of theater would probably have the same immersion problem.
That said, the sequels will be the first movies since Avatar to have solid 3D, and if the first sequel is a lot of underwater, that might be worth seeing in theaters.
But the titles are middle-grade fantasy Pern knock-off weak.
Sums up the movie perfectly.
So WHY do they need another separate streaming platform?
GasBandit
Staff member
If that was a thing, pornhub would have gotten nailed long ago. They own pretty much all the big porn streaming sites.
There should be, just like Mickey Mouse should have been public domain years ago, but Disney has this green stuff that lawmakers love and it ain't Flubber.
(Was Flubber Disney? If not, it will be someday.)
(Was Flubber Disney? If not, it will be someday.)
GasBandit
Staff member
Thing is, you can't really "monopolize" the streaming website industry. Monopolies require a way to... well... monopolize some sort of resource or access, and nothing's preventing another streaming site from starting up, other than the bandwidth costs. It's not like broadcast media or telecoms, those all have a geographic component, and it's not like Carnegie Steel or Standard Oil, because streaming videos aren't a physical commodity.
But the content is. A streaming site is nothing without content. You can't just start up a new site and start streaming episodes of Law & Order, because someone else owns the rights to it. And now by all accounts, Disney has or will have the rights to ABC, Fox, and now NBC content. Universal may still own the network, but Hulu was their streaming platform.
figmentPez
Staff member
Pornhub hasn't gotten in trouble for their history of copyright violations, either, but that's because the legal/political system is heavily stacked against anyone who makes or consumes pornography. Even more so than the system is stacked against anyone who makes or consumes media in general.
Operational control, not outright ownership yet. Comcast still owns 33%, and won't actually sell that until their contract runs out, or they open their own streaming service. That is not a monopoly, nor limiting access to the NBC portion of the platform.
GasBandit
Staff member
But you can't "monopolize" a single specific product. Even before streaming, you could only watch Law and Order on one TV channel - whichever one had the rights at the moment. You couldn't just "start up" a new channel and start airing Law and Order on it, either. That's not what a monopoly is. Anyone with the capital CAN start up a new streaming site, AND license or produce whatever content they see fit, even a new police procedural/legal drama show, and provide that content there. There's no monopoly.
Also consider - the Cheezburger network, which for several years, owned all the websites that totalled something like 90% of meme-related traffic on the internet. They started with icanhascheezburger.com and made enough money there to buy out FailBlog, Memebase, KnowYourMeme, ThereIfixedIt, ArtOfTrolling, etc etc etc.
Unless a monopoly actually prevents access to any sort of competition (and no, wanting to watch law and order somewhere else doesn't count), it's not a monopoly.
GasBandit
Staff member
Another example, not to put too fine a point on it - if General Mills signs a deal to only sell its Cheerios line of cereals at Target, that's not a monopoly. Other oat/wheat/rice cereals of similar configuration can be and are offered by other stores (and Target, too).
Now, if Target BUYS Kroger, Aldi, HEB, etc, then it could be said to be monopolistic because they own almost all the grocery stores within a geographic area.
There's no geographic limitations on the internet. Disney can legally have as many disparate streaming services as they care to, and any given show being exclusive to one of them does not constitute a monopoly. If a new streaming service starts up and offers competing content, the only real barrier they have to competition is word of mouth and the quality of their own content.
Now, if Disney starts buying telecoms or backbone providers, THAT is different... Because then they are in a position to control access. Or, if they start using their money muscle to pressure producers into only dealing with their streaming services and no other, that gets anticompetitive real quick (looking at you, Epic).
Now, if Target BUYS Kroger, Aldi, HEB, etc, then it could be said to be monopolistic because they own almost all the grocery stores within a geographic area.
There's no geographic limitations on the internet. Disney can legally have as many disparate streaming services as they care to, and any given show being exclusive to one of them does not constitute a monopoly. If a new streaming service starts up and offers competing content, the only real barrier they have to competition is word of mouth and the quality of their own content.
Now, if Disney starts buying telecoms or backbone providers, THAT is different... Because then they are in a position to control access. Or, if they start using their money muscle to pressure producers into only dealing with their streaming services and no other, that gets anticompetitive real quick (looking at you, Epic).
I...umm....no. Economically speaking, it's a monopoly when you're abusing market share to make it economically unviable to enter the market for others. "Everyone can open a streaming service" is just as true as "everyone can put down their own cables and become a new ISP", or "anyone can buy a building and open a new grocery store". Technically true, practically impossible.
And, also not to put too fine a point on it, you may have forgotten because you're used to working through VPNs and so on, but the internet is regionally locked these days.
I'll agree it may not meet the legal definition of a monopoly. Just like, say, Steam in the '00s, it does constitute an economic monopoly.
GasBandit
Staff member
It's not even in the same realm, barrier-to-entry wise. There's a WORLD of difference between setting up a new website and trenching your own new fiber or building a building. It's hard to even know where to begin with all the differences, but it's practically an apples-to-oranges comparison.
Platform providers have to abide by restrictions placed on the geographic location of the end-user: if content can't be shown in whatever country, for whatever legal reason, but it can be shown elsewhere then it's clear that there are geographic limitations on the Internet.
figmentPez
Staff member
1. I don't know what your point is here. Yes, they were the go-to source for memes for a while, but they never actually controlled the market. If they had successfully found a way to control memes, they'd be a huge problem for society. They never really had much an iron grip of legal control over their corner of the media market like Disney does. And while they blatantly stole content from other creators, like Pornhub, they didn't do so with impunity to copyright law.
2. You're ignoring anti-competitive business practices; which media companies, both Disney and Pornhub included, regularly engage in.
You can't have a monopoly on cereal? The fuck you can't. Making enough cereal to have a national brand requires resources. If you can't buy enough good quality ingredients in bulk, you can't make enough cereal to compete with Cheerios. If you can't buy the machines to make cereal in bulk, you can't compete with Cheerios. If you can't out-spend Cheerios to buy shelf-space long enough to gain and keep markeshare, you can't compete with Cheerios. And if you think that the major cereal manufacturers don't put the squeeze on any small makers who look like they might grow enough to change from being a niche market into a competitor, you're living in a dream world. It's not just the tech industry that buys up or shuts down successful start-ups.
Now imagine if you want to start up a grocery store, and you can't stock Cheerios. You can't stock anything General Mills, or Kraft, or Nestle, or any major brand. Oh, but you say, Trader Joe's and Aldi exist. Yeah, they exist because they have existed since the 1960s, and still highly dependent on selling commodities. Even though they have their own store brands, they still buy all that food from the same manufacturers. If Trader Joe's were trying to start-up as a chain today, they'd have a very hard time getting food on their shelves.
And don't go pretending that media is an interchangeable commodity. People can make another procedural cop drama, but it won't be Law & Order. People can make movies about powerful heroes, but they won't be the Marvel Cinematic Universe. And you're just telling me that anyone can start a new competing streaming service when they can't offer any of that? Bullshit. This is like some company owning 100% of the cavendish banana market, and every variety of apple humans eat, and every orange, lemon, pineapple, strawberrry, etc. And telling people it's not a monopoly because there are fruits like persimmon that they don't own, and lots of exotic fruits that aren't mass market yet.
Media has a huge influence on culture, and you damn well know it. Letting a huge company like Disney control so much of our culture is a major problem.
Yeah, i mean, remember when youtube starting putting ads everywhere and it's automated systems starting false flagging way too many videos, and then everyone just went elsewhere?