Disney's media properties:Disney does not have close to a vice grip on a "majority of popular entertainment." That's obtuse. This is such a diverse market it's just not measurable in any way that a single company has control over anything, other than like a genre of movies... bangy epic super hero action movies, which happen to be the most popular in-theatre movies for people go to this forum. Dr. Strange will kill the box office this weekend, but nobody goes to the movies. Over 60% of American adults see 0 movies at the theatre a year, zero, and those numbers might get better as the pandemic kinda sorta changes, but the trends aren't good. The streaming providers don't release hard data publicly, but based on subscriber numbers, the biggest movie this weekend will be something like US Marshalls or some Adam Sandler movie on netflix that has almost zero cultural impact, the biggest TV show will be that new alien one on Amazon Prime or Ozarks on NEtflix or something on HBO... there's some show or movie called "365 Days" with a man holding some lady's boobs, and that's gonna be pretty big.
People being obtuse are the ones who think that Dr. Strange has a cultural impact outside of our bubbles. If you're into action movies, Dr. Strange is *the* movie right now, but that's a small percentage of people, and it's probably getting smaller. Not because of Disney's power in the industry, but because people don't like movie theatres anymore, and you really can't blame the public for that. For most people, going to the movies isn't a good experience and there's more competition for their eyes than ever. Doesn't mean they'll always be dead or dying, but right now, they are.
Disney has the most power in a mildly popular genre of entertainment, bangy action movies with super heroes. But even then there's Batman, there's the new Top Gun, for some reason tens of millions of Americans are watching US Marshalls this weekend, a mostly forgotten movie tht I think I Watched as a 14 year old.
Assuming they actually get close to be a real Monopoly, won't they just do what Google did?
Make a larger umbrella like Alphabet and just split their stuff up underneath that?
How many kids under 6, let's say, are watching Disney properties vs the output of Cocomelon? How much time do kids between 7 and 15 spend on Roblox vs Disney properties? At what point does TikTok start to come into the picture? How does that listing fare against Spongebob, Paw Patrol, or Peppa Pig for mindshare?Disney's media properties:
Disney
Pixar
Marvel
LucasFilm
ESPN
Fox
That's just off the top of my head, I'm sure there's more that I don't know of. These media properties are fucking huge, and reducing Disney to the company that makes super hero movies is actually ridiculous. There's not a child alive in the U.S. whose entire media landscape can't be summed up as "Disney plus some other stuff", and that's an incredible amount of influence to wield. That statement arguably holds for many adults too, and conflating the raw number of movies people see in theater's to their success/influence doesn't make any sense. Disney's influence is long lived, starts young, and extends beyond what they show in theaters.
Frankly, I can't speak to how young kids writ large are now dividing their time, but every small child I've come into contact with over, say, the last 5 years has absolutely been heavy on at least one thing owned by Disney. Maybe Disney's hold will wane over time, but anyone with some money to spend right now almost certainly has or had a lot of Disney stuff comprising their media diet. I see no reason to assume that the incredibly influential properties that Disney owns, properties that so far have enduring popularity over generations, are simply going to not appeal to a kid 5, 10 years from now, especially if Disney is proactive in marketing them to kids(which they almost certainly will be).How many kids under 6, let's say, are watching Disney properties vs the output of Cocomelon? How many time kids between 7 and 15 spending on Roblox vs Disney properties? At what point does TikTok start to come into the picture?
I mean, heck, you often hear that Pokemon is the biggest media franchise in the world. Now, I don't think that's true, but the fact that it's not just outright and unquestionably Disney counts for a lot. It's not just a case of listing out media properties, many of which we are familiar with, and assuming it simply must hold true en masse.
The last film I saw in theatres before the pandemic hit. 4.5./5People complaining about Marvel Disney
But no one supported this movie when it came out.
if people watched this we'll be getting Valiant EXTENDED UNIVERSE
The last film I
None of this makes a lick of sense.'d give Star Wars and Lucasfilm back to Lucas and his estate. It's where it belongs.
Most of the Fox acquired properties, I'd give back to Fox.
Marvel I might just have go back to being independent.
My issue with this argument is it is focusing on the wrong area for what the concern ultimately is. What is the ultimate concern here?Frankly, I can't speak to how young kids writ large are now dividing their time, but every small child I've come into contact with over, say, the last 5 years has absolutely been heavy on at least one thing owned by Disney. Maybe Disney's hold will wane over time, but anyone with some money to spend right now almost certainly has or had a lot of Disney stuff comprising their media diet. I see no reason to assume that the incredibly influential properties that Disney owns, properties that so far have enduring popularity over generations, are simply going to not appeal to a kid 5, 10 years from now, especially if Disney is proactive in marketing them to kids(which they almost certainly will be).
Like, I can understand if people come into this thread and feel calling them a monopoly is hyperbolic. It likely is, but I don't get at all people just brushing off Disney's consolidation of IP, studios, media in general like it isn't something to be concerned about. It's not a pressing as, say, tech consolidation, but treating this as a non-issue because it's about the media we consume isn't the answer either because that shit is important.
agreed Disney doesnt have a monopoly, last I checked there are planty of other companies making tv/movies. to awsner the question, I wouldnt becouse they arent one.They own a bunch of IP. Them owning a bunch of very popular very valuable IP does not stop other companies from producing content. Mental gymnastics are required to call this something worth breaking up because they don't own the theaters, internet providers, or cable services that they and their competition put their content out through. Monopolies aren't just about how much a company owns, but how much control they could influence on potential competition.
What is this thread.
It just reads like a regurgitation of clickbaity youtube videos. The suggestions of how to break apart Disney in the OP just make no sense.
It doesn't really matter if it makes more sense or not, it's about what is or is not an achievable outcome. Of course the better answer is to simply have a system that is inherently resistant to the influence of large and popular company, but at that point you're getting into the realm of system change, which is basically a non-starter in the current day U.S. Divvying up Disney, a single company, is an easier and more specific step than attempting to make the changes necessary under capitalism to stop a size class of corporation from having too much influence over our media diets. As much as I would like to see a change like that, it's pure fantasy.My point is this: Rather than focusing on taking away enough of Disney's IP that it doesn't reach an arbitrary popularity metric, doesn't it make more sense to focus on limiting the power and influence they can exert with that popularity?
The Fox stuff is funny because the other option was merging with NBC/Universal... who you know is owned by an ISP/Telecom Giant... you know Comcast, one of America's most hated companies
Right, but you said they've a vice grip; that would indicate more than just a few things of interest in. I mean, I don't expect us all to have precise metrics for how kids divide time, but that's kinda the crux of the matter. Whether or not kids like one thing Disney does not mean they don't like one or more things from other properties, and I would posit that we're not super well positioned to recognize or remember as well media beyond the properties we've grown up with. No one is denying they're influential, but "breaking up" just because we suspect that a certain [randomly chosen] sample size of kids has a certain [randomly chosen and very challenging to measure] interest in certain IPs is pretty weakly argued.Frankly, I can't speak to how young kids writ large are now dividing their time, but every small child I've come into contact with over, say, the last 5 years has absolutely been heavy on at least one thing owned by Disney. Maybe Disney's hold will wane over time, but anyone with some money to spend right now almost certainly has or had a lot of Disney stuff comprising their media diet. I see no reason to assume that the incredibly influential properties that Disney owns, properties that so far have enduring popularity over generations, are simply going to not appeal to a kid 5, 10 years from now, especially if Disney is proactive in marketing them to kids(which they almost certainly will be).
Like, I can understand if people come into this thread and feel calling them a monopoly is hyperbolic. It likely is, but I don't get at all people just brushing off Disney's consolidation of IP, studios, media in general like it isn't something to be concerned about. It's not a pressing as, say, tech consolidation, but treating this as a non-issue because it's about the media we consume isn't the answer either because that shit is important.
What does Disney have a monopoly on? Disney creations or owned IPs because uh... I uh... don't know how to break this to you...
Gasp!
Doesn't it though? What seems more achievable and useful in this situation? Creating an arbitrary metric that determines a maximum level of popularity any one entity is allowed to achieve via IP owned, or creating rules around what any one entity is allowed to do with the power or influence they have (via IP or not)?It doesn't really matter if it makes more sense or not, it's about what is or is not an achievable outcome.
Nintendo has a monopoly on Nintendo games.
"They need to lose something."
Pretty sure he's on ice in the disney vault
Disney has had major influence on kids for 60+ years. Just there's now sci-fi and super heroes too instead of mostly fairy tales and animal Hamlet.Frankly, I can't speak to how young kids writ large are now dividing their time, but every small child I've come into contact with over, say, the last 5 years has absolutely been heavy on at least one thing owned by Disney. Maybe Disney's hold will wane over time, but anyone with some money to spend right now almost certainly has or had a lot of Disney stuff comprising their media diet. I see no reason to assume that the incredibly influential properties that Disney owns, properties that so far have enduring popularity over generations, are simply going to not appeal to a kid 5, 10 years from now, especially if Disney is proactive in marketing them to kids(which they almost certainly will be).
Like, I can understand if people come into this thread and feel calling them a monopoly is hyperbolic. It likely is, but I don't get at all people just brushing off Disney's consolidation of IP, studios, media in general like it isn't something to be concerned about. It's not a pressing as, say, tech consolidation, but treating this as a non-issue because it's about the media we consume isn't the answer either because that shit is important.
Looking at an individual corporation and deciding if they meet an arbitrary metric to be actioned is way more achievable than a suite of new rules being applied to corporations writ large regarding how much influence they can wield.Doesn't it though? What seems more achievable and useful in this situation? Creating an arbitrary metric that determines a maximum level of popularity any one entity is allowed to achieve via IP owned, or creating rules around what any one entity is allowed to do with the power or influence they have (via IP or not)?
When I said "Disney has a vice grip on pop media" I was not limiting my concern to that of children. They have a strong consolidation of a lot of important IP and media operations that gives them a broad amount of influence over entertainment in general. I think it's important to consider their influence over kids, but that isn't the focus of my concern. And I never argued that they should literally be broken up, only that their current size is somewhat worrisome is deserving of scrutiny.Right, but you said they've a vice grip; that would indicate more than just a few things of interest in. I mean, I don't expect us all to have precise metrics for how kids divide time, but that's kinda the crux of the matter. Whether or not kids like one thing Disney does not mean they don't like one or more things from other properties, and I would posit that we're not super well positioned to recognize or remember as well media beyond the properties we've grown up with. No one is denying they're influential, but "breaking up" just because we suspect that a certain [randomly chosen] sample size of kids has a certain [randomly chosen and very challenging to measure] interest in certain IPs is pretty weakly argued.
Perhaps, but even outside of children, that would be tremendously hard to measure and I don't even think offhand it's especially true. I mean, we're on a video game forum; how big is Disney in video games? Not massively so, and that's a far larger market than movies. I don't see what's concerning at all, to be honest.When I said "Disney has a vice grip on pop media" I was not limiting my concern to that of children. They have a strong consolidation of a lot of important IP and media operations that gives them a broad amount of influence over entertainment in general. I think it's important to consider their influence over kids, but that isn't the focus of my concern. And I never argued that they should literally be broken up, only that their current size is somewhat worrisome is deserving of scrutiny.
I still don't see what the big deal is even if they dominated pop media.When I said "Disney has a vice grip on pop media" I was not limiting my concern to that of children. They have a strong consolidation of a lot of important IP and media operations that gives them a broad amount of influence over entertainment in general. I think it's important to consider their influence over kids, but that isn't the focus of my concern. And I never argued that they should literally be broken up, only that their current size is somewhat worrisome is deserving of scrutiny.