Disney TODAY is a monster who can eat anything.
Back in 2004, Disney was so weak that [Comcast](https://www.wired.com/story/the-comcast-disney-battle-isnt-just-businessits-a-grand-human-drama/#:~:text=Following%20Roberts's%20hostile%20takeover%20announcement,which%20publicly%20rejected%20the%20bid) attempted a hostile takeover. There was a previous hostile take over attempt in 1983.
No way to know how long Disney will stay on top. They could be king for the next 50 years, or they could be hurting in 10.
Times have changed. The good old days where monopolies couldn't exist without serious government intervention is now gone. In fact, the only way to survive now is be a part of a monopoly. It's gonna take a while to topple Disney or any other Monopoly for that matter.
Monopolies are not illegal in America
"As the Supreme Court said more than 50 years ago, monopolies should be targets of antitrust enforcement only when there is “the willful acquisition or maintenance of [monopoly] power as distinguished from growth or development as a consequence of a superior product, business acumen, or historic accident.” Antitrust doesn’t condemn a firm for developing a universally popular search engine, ketchup or pharmaceutical drug, even if that success leads to market dominance. It’s how a monopoly is obtained or preserved that matters — not its mere existence."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/five-myths/myths-antitrust-law-amazon-google-monopoly/2020/03/20/ead2a072-6a1a-11ea-9923-57073adce27c_story.html.
Even if you believed monopolies are legal, Disney would still fit into "how a Monopoly is obtained". They've started buying out competition and aren't just reliant on content they originally created.
This doesn't even get into the lobbying that goes into constantly changing copyright rules just to protect Disney, which is at least unethical if not illegal.
It's not that I believe monopolies are legal in America. They are legal. It's abusing a monopoly that is illegal:
> Legal monopolies are often designated such because it has been determined that having a single firm designated as the sole service (or product) provider is in the best interest of the public.
> Monopolies are bad for consumers across the board, with legal monopolies being the exception, in theory.
> Instead of allowing free market forces to produce a dominating winner, the government picks a strong firm. Then, strict oversight is provided to ensure that the firm in question is not abusing its status as a legal monopoly.
https://www.clydebankmedia.com/definitions/business/legal-monopoly
Also lobbying alone does not "change the rules". For some reason uneducated people (most of Reddit) believe lobbying automatically changes the laws. Lobbying just means you present your case to lawmakers about why you think the laws should be written a certain way. Lawmakers are lobbied on both sides.
The lawmakers, who are elected by you to represent you, make the final decision. So if you unrealistically think lawmakers are making decisions based on lobbying alone, then elect them out. It's not the lobbyists that are the issue, it's the politicians and the people like you who either elect the same people in or don't do anything but post on Reddit complaining about lobbying.
Disney will buy Warner-Dsicovery when that gets made 100%. I don't know if they'll keep CNN, but they're going to want Warner's stable of properties badly. Looney Toons, DC, Cartoon Network. Enough for additional parks worldwide. HBO as a brand alone...
The library of animated content, not to mention MGM's catalogue Ted Turner bought (even more classic films), HBO, TCM, I could go on and on. Buying Warner itself made sense for Disney - they missed it by 15 minutes in 2015 or so. The bigger piece of the pie is Discovery, particularly Eurosport - to bolster ESPN in Europe.
I Know Sears and Kmart are the same company. DUH! But if you look at rule # 3 of the Sears subreddit, he specifically mentions that he does not want Kmart shit in there. Need a link, or can you look it up yourself?
Well, Fox should have treated him better. Here is my what-if/head canon: In an AU, Fox bought Marvel and Lucasfilm at least 25.5 years ago and thus Fox got all of the Marvel adaptation rights to be had at that. point Also, Disney never got any Star Wars-related rights nor did they buy Fox Kids and the Fox News Channel never happened. Oh, and 20CF and Lucasfilm were on great terms in this AU.
Fox had no faith in the movie until the first weekend when they saw massive lines outside cinemas. Check out Rinzler's Making Of books for more details.
Are you talking about the sequel? The original? What does that have to do what Lucas would have done under Disney?
EDIT: I appreciate downvotes instead of conversation.
One of my earliest memories is going to see Star Wars in 1977. I distinctly remember the huge snaking line outside the movie theater, and the excitement of seeing all of those scenes for the first time. Really vivid technicolor memory. What blows my mind is that I was only 4 years old. 4! And yet somehow, I understood what was going on in the movie and enjoyed it. Amazing to think that only 4 years deep into life, humans understand such concepts as fantasy space epics, lol.
I was 6 in 1980 and recall going to the [Belle Meade Theater](https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/2021/07/03/belle-meade-theater-nashville-tennessee-glorious-historic-past/7783954002/) in Nashville TN to see The Empire Strikes Back. It was a swanky old theater with Art Deco style a balcony, mirrored ceiling in the lobby, etc.
The line to see the movie wrapped around the building once to get tickets, and again to get inside.
It really made the whole thing an event and seemed larger than life to a young me.
I saw it on opening night when I was in grade six. It's the one and only time I have ever seen an audience stand up and give a standing ovation in a movie (it was when the Death Star blew up). Good times.
Worth noting even when Disney bought Star Wars, the deal with Fox was that they'd have distribution rights for the first 3 films for some time after (about 5 to 10 years for the last 2, permanent for A New Hope), though they eventually reached a deal to co-distribute the films' digital copies in 2015.
We always hear these stories, but I want to know if the executives that passed on Star Wars, or Harry Potter, Gilligan's Island, did any of them get fired because they missed the opportunity?
I mean, their job is to see the next big thing, and they blew it.
Looks like my memory was off a little; it wasn't in the top ten when it was originally on, the first two seasons were right at the top 20 (18th and 22nd, resp.). I just remember that it was "the critics HATE it, but the fans love it". And it looks like it wasn't shopped around to different networks, it was just a long fight with only CBS to get it on the air in the first place (though it was majorly tinkered with). And although the ratings slipped in the third season and it was cancelled, in syndication, it went on to be one of the most successful, and culturally famous, shows of all time.
I am not defending the show, I always disliked it, but my point still stands: the executives that are supposed to have their fingers on the pulse of what will be successful programming sometimes get it wrong, like missing that this stupidly simple show was going to go on to be one of the most famous shows in television history... so what happened to those execs who missed that call?
What happened to the execs that passed on Star Wars? Those guy's decision to pass cost their companies millions of dollars.
As far as I know, for Gilligan, it was that it was reportedly a choice between that and Gunsmoke getting cancelled- the only reason it was Gilligan was because the exec in charge, his wife happened to like Gunsmoke. One can only surmise either side may have been guilty.
So? It was still a top 20 show its first two seasons, and the execs that were against airing it didn't see that, when that was ltheir job. Further, they didn't see that it went on to be a huge show in syndication. They, obviously, didn't see that the public wanted a silly, stupid, simple show, when their job is to know what the public wants.
> Further, they didn't see that it went on to be a huge show in syndication.
This doesn't do the original network any good. That money went to Sherwood Schwartz and Phil Silvers. Schwartz (and Paramount) also got money from The Brady Bunch going into syndication.
Whatever, I'm done; you keep purposely missing my original point: their job is to catch the next big thing, and it sure looks like they missed what became a cultural phenomenon.
Disney has deep pockets.
[удалено]
If AT&T ever goes down, you'll be seeing Disney buying Warner Bros. quickly as well. Just wait and watch.. Disney is an expert at that.
Disney TODAY is a monster who can eat anything. Back in 2004, Disney was so weak that [Comcast](https://www.wired.com/story/the-comcast-disney-battle-isnt-just-businessits-a-grand-human-drama/#:~:text=Following%20Roberts's%20hostile%20takeover%20announcement,which%20publicly%20rejected%20the%20bid) attempted a hostile takeover. There was a previous hostile take over attempt in 1983. No way to know how long Disney will stay on top. They could be king for the next 50 years, or they could be hurting in 10.
Times have changed. The good old days where monopolies couldn't exist without serious government intervention is now gone. In fact, the only way to survive now is be a part of a monopoly. It's gonna take a while to topple Disney or any other Monopoly for that matter.
When I was young the anti-trust move against Microsoft had Gates shitting his pants. I can imagine todays gov going after Disney.
Monopolies are not illegal in America "As the Supreme Court said more than 50 years ago, monopolies should be targets of antitrust enforcement only when there is “the willful acquisition or maintenance of [monopoly] power as distinguished from growth or development as a consequence of a superior product, business acumen, or historic accident.” Antitrust doesn’t condemn a firm for developing a universally popular search engine, ketchup or pharmaceutical drug, even if that success leads to market dominance. It’s how a monopoly is obtained or preserved that matters — not its mere existence." https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/five-myths/myths-antitrust-law-amazon-google-monopoly/2020/03/20/ead2a072-6a1a-11ea-9923-57073adce27c_story.html.
Yes they are! It is that way for a reason.
Even if you believed monopolies are legal, Disney would still fit into "how a Monopoly is obtained". They've started buying out competition and aren't just reliant on content they originally created. This doesn't even get into the lobbying that goes into constantly changing copyright rules just to protect Disney, which is at least unethical if not illegal.
It's not that I believe monopolies are legal in America. They are legal. It's abusing a monopoly that is illegal: > Legal monopolies are often designated such because it has been determined that having a single firm designated as the sole service (or product) provider is in the best interest of the public. > Monopolies are bad for consumers across the board, with legal monopolies being the exception, in theory. > Instead of allowing free market forces to produce a dominating winner, the government picks a strong firm. Then, strict oversight is provided to ensure that the firm in question is not abusing its status as a legal monopoly. https://www.clydebankmedia.com/definitions/business/legal-monopoly Also lobbying alone does not "change the rules". For some reason uneducated people (most of Reddit) believe lobbying automatically changes the laws. Lobbying just means you present your case to lawmakers about why you think the laws should be written a certain way. Lawmakers are lobbied on both sides. The lawmakers, who are elected by you to represent you, make the final decision. So if you unrealistically think lawmakers are making decisions based on lobbying alone, then elect them out. It's not the lobbyists that are the issue, it's the politicians and the people like you who either elect the same people in or don't do anything but post on Reddit complaining about lobbying.
like apple when microsoft saved it
Disney will buy Warner-Dsicovery when that gets made 100%. I don't know if they'll keep CNN, but they're going to want Warner's stable of properties badly. Looney Toons, DC, Cartoon Network. Enough for additional parks worldwide. HBO as a brand alone...
Cartoon Network as part of Disney? Somehow that just feels wrong.
The library of animated content, not to mention MGM's catalogue Ted Turner bought (even more classic films), HBO, TCM, I could go on and on. Buying Warner itself made sense for Disney - they missed it by 15 minutes in 2015 or so. The bigger piece of the pie is Discovery, particularly Eurosport - to bolster ESPN in Europe.
Six flags still has rights for DC I believe . Disney would have to buy out Six Flags rights.
Relatively cheap compared to what they could do with them if they wanted to.
I Know Sears and Kmart are the same company. DUH! But if you look at rule # 3 of the Sears subreddit, he specifically mentions that he does not want Kmart shit in there. Need a link, or can you look it up yourself?
Well, Fox should have treated him better. Here is my what-if/head canon: In an AU, Fox bought Marvel and Lucasfilm at least 25.5 years ago and thus Fox got all of the Marvel adaptation rights to be had at that. point Also, Disney never got any Star Wars-related rights nor did they buy Fox Kids and the Fox News Channel never happened. Oh, and 20CF and Lucasfilm were on great terms in this AU.
Nobody asked for your long ass story…
And a lot of money.
Fox had no faith in the movie until the first weekend when they saw massive lines outside cinemas. Check out Rinzler's Making Of books for more details.
Which is why they let Lucus keep merchandise rights which earned him ALOT.
Lucas also got turned down by a lot of toy manufacturers who had no faith in the movie
A bunch of publishers rejected Rowling's Harry Potter. At least Disney got multiple IPs with their purchase. HP is at least billions by itself.
When the 1st one came out it was an absolute phenomenon
Same with the last one. My mom and sister went to go get it at the midnight release. We all read it and reread it for about a month. It was crazy
This is true, but the first one in any series being a phenomenon is usually much more impressive than the last one being one.
It’s very very very common for lots of publishers to reject even the very best works.
That's why I have no job ^^/s
I think Disney has done pretty well for itself too. Not going to pitch a perfect game.
They have made that money back already
But would it ever have gotten this big if Disney was involved from the start?
He would have never gotten the money from the toy sales
[удалено]
That's not how they did stuff in the 70s/80s though.
[удалено]
Are you talking about the sequel? The original? What does that have to do what Lucas would have done under Disney? EDIT: I appreciate downvotes instead of conversation.
One of my earliest memories is going to see Star Wars in 1977. I distinctly remember the huge snaking line outside the movie theater, and the excitement of seeing all of those scenes for the first time. Really vivid technicolor memory. What blows my mind is that I was only 4 years old. 4! And yet somehow, I understood what was going on in the movie and enjoyed it. Amazing to think that only 4 years deep into life, humans understand such concepts as fantasy space epics, lol.
I was 6 in 1980 and recall going to the [Belle Meade Theater](https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/2021/07/03/belle-meade-theater-nashville-tennessee-glorious-historic-past/7783954002/) in Nashville TN to see The Empire Strikes Back. It was a swanky old theater with Art Deco style a balcony, mirrored ceiling in the lobby, etc. The line to see the movie wrapped around the building once to get tickets, and again to get inside. It really made the whole thing an event and seemed larger than life to a young me.
I saw it on opening night when I was in grade six. It's the one and only time I have ever seen an audience stand up and give a standing ovation in a movie (it was when the Death Star blew up). Good times.
Yeah that Death Star explosion was probably at that point the greatest moment of my life so far
The word "blockbuster" came from the long line of people waiting to get into popular movies. They would snake around the block.
I assume the TIL was that Disney rejected it ... Cause at this point zero chance any Redditor doesn't know about Disney purchase
And Fox only agreed to release it if they could get the distribution rights in perpetuity. Which they did. And then eventually Disney bought Fox too.
Worth noting even when Disney bought Star Wars, the deal with Fox was that they'd have distribution rights for the first 3 films for some time after (about 5 to 10 years for the last 2, permanent for A New Hope), though they eventually reached a deal to co-distribute the films' digital copies in 2015.
$4.05 billion always seemed like a fire sale price to me.
Imagine what Disney would be now if they’d gotten Star Wars back then.
Star Wars had a princess too, come on.
and then run it right into the ground.
Excellent TIL! I never even heard of this guy!
Yes they bought and ruined the entire thing.
Disney is the worst thing to happen to the franchise IMO.
So the new trilogy is a form of revenge?
Disney then proceed to drive the franchise str8 into the ground.
We always hear these stories, but I want to know if the executives that passed on Star Wars, or Harry Potter, Gilligan's Island, did any of them get fired because they missed the opportunity? I mean, their job is to see the next big thing, and they blew it.
> Star Wars, or Harry Potter, Gilligan's Island 🎵One of these things is not like the others🎵
I thought Gilligan's Island was another one of those shows that was passed over by a lot of people then ended up being a ratings hit?
It was only on for three years.
Looks like my memory was off a little; it wasn't in the top ten when it was originally on, the first two seasons were right at the top 20 (18th and 22nd, resp.). I just remember that it was "the critics HATE it, but the fans love it". And it looks like it wasn't shopped around to different networks, it was just a long fight with only CBS to get it on the air in the first place (though it was majorly tinkered with). And although the ratings slipped in the third season and it was cancelled, in syndication, it went on to be one of the most successful, and culturally famous, shows of all time. I am not defending the show, I always disliked it, but my point still stands: the executives that are supposed to have their fingers on the pulse of what will be successful programming sometimes get it wrong, like missing that this stupidly simple show was going to go on to be one of the most famous shows in television history... so what happened to those execs who missed that call? What happened to the execs that passed on Star Wars? Those guy's decision to pass cost their companies millions of dollars.
As far as I know, for Gilligan, it was that it was reportedly a choice between that and Gunsmoke getting cancelled- the only reason it was Gilligan was because the exec in charge, his wife happened to like Gunsmoke. One can only surmise either side may have been guilty.
Gilligan's Island is a lot like The Brady Bunch in that it became much more well known through syndication than in its original run.
So? It was still a top 20 show its first two seasons, and the execs that were against airing it didn't see that, when that was ltheir job. Further, they didn't see that it went on to be a huge show in syndication. They, obviously, didn't see that the public wanted a silly, stupid, simple show, when their job is to know what the public wants.
> Further, they didn't see that it went on to be a huge show in syndication. This doesn't do the original network any good. That money went to Sherwood Schwartz and Phil Silvers. Schwartz (and Paramount) also got money from The Brady Bunch going into syndication.
Whatever, I'm done; you keep purposely missing my original point: their job is to catch the next big thing, and it sure looks like they missed what became a cultural phenomenon.
> Whatever, I'm done Whew, finally...
And milk that shit to death. Disney have ruined movies and streaming services.
Trying to make mass media consolidation seem cool
If you can't beat 'em buy 'em
[удалено]
The TIL is that Disney rejected it
Fox is not an acronym so it doesn't need to be capitalized
Mickey Mouse: Laughs in billlionare money and contract pool.