
Disney, IP, and “Returns to Marginal Affinity” - jger15
https://www.matthewball.vc/all/marginalaffinity
======
skokage
I disagree with this article that this is all about their ability to "tell
stories", as much as management that's really good at identifying which
company to acquire next so they can squeeze every last cent from consumers for
whichever IP they are pushing at the time.

Most people I've talked to DON'T believe the star wars series has gotten
better from a story telling perspective, as this article proposes. I don't
think most people believe live-action remakes of their classic cartoons is
quality story-telling. I think they are just really good at reading market
trends, have enough money in their coffers to acquire whatever is becoming the
next big thing, advertise and push it into becoming a cultural phenomenon,
then moving onto whatever is next once they've exhausted that IP.

Edit - and to be clear, I most likely have a very jaded view here. I don't
like disney as a company, nor am I a fan of superhero movies, star wars, or a
lot of what the company has been pushing for the last decade or so. I respect
their ability to make a ton of money, but I don't like a majority of what they
create anymore, nor how they treat a majority of their employees.

~~~
danShumway
> I respect their ability to make a ton of money, but I don't like a majority
> of what they create anymore, nor how they treat a majority of their
> employees.

That's a really good summation of my views on Disney. It's obvious they know
how to build consistently polished stories that will be consistently enjoyable
to a wide audience. I respect that.

But it's not clear to me that's a goal worth pursuing, or that the artistic
value of their movies has gone up because of that. It's good to have some
media that's safe and predictable and that is primarily motivated by market
trends. But when that's all a company is making, then behind that nice facade
lies a deeply cynical way of looking at the world, where creative choices are
calculated for broad appeal rather than for their inherent value.

I'm not going to say that's _all_ Disney makes. Just that the percentage of
films Disney is making that fall into that category is growing at a rapid
clip.

It's a jaded view in the sense that I'm cynical about Disney, but it's really
not me trying to crap on popular things. There are a lot of popular things
that are really, really good. But I know when a movie actually feels special
and honest to me, when I feel like the author genuinely had a good reason to
make it, and made it because they loved it. And Disney movies don't feel that
way to me. They're glossy, and pretty, and impressive, and they know the right
things to say, but they're made of plastic instead of flesh.

~~~
thrower123
The insidious thing is that Disney is making an increasing share of all the
things, too.

I don't understand why they were allowed to buy 20th Century Fox.

~~~
friedman23
Because when you objectively analyze it, they don't have anything close to a
monopoly on content.

~~~
JohnJamesRambo
How can you even say that? I’m dumbfounded. Only in this era of complete
erosion of antitrust could this statement be made. Standard Oil would have
been awed by this cornering of the market.

[https://www.titlemax.com/discovery-center/money-
finance/comp...](https://www.titlemax.com/discovery-center/money-
finance/companies-disney-owns-worldwide/)

~~~
lotsofpulp
Pretty much all movie/TV content comes out of:

Disney

Comcast

AT&T

Amazon

Apple

Netflix

CBS

Sony

Fox Corp

It’s a get big or get crushed world right now. Of the latter 4, I wonder who
Microsoft/Google/Verizon/Facebook will buy.

~~~
scarface74
Well, seeing that you actually put Apple in that list shows a skewed
perspective.

As far as getting big or getting crushed - both Blumhouse and Tyler Perry
Studios make movies that get wide releases with budgets between $5 and $10
million.

~~~
lotsofpulp
Yes, there will probably be roles for small companies serving smaller
demographics, but I meant to point out the weakening position of standalone
media companies. The power is in the hands of the owners of the
infrastructure, except for Disney who I think has an exceptional ownership of
desirable content.

Apple I put on there because they can afford to burn so many dollars, it puts
them in league with Comcast and ATT and Disney. The other media companies
don't have a rent collecting cash cow to lean on.

~~~
scarface74
The media companies don’t “own” the infrastructure. Anyone who can get the
money can buy the equipment, hire the people and make a movie. Tyler Perry
Studios and Blumhouse or proof. You don’t even need to put your movie in
theaters.

There are plenty of streaming services looking for exclusive content. Barring
that, you can sell your movie yourself over the internet or through any of the
video on demand services.

You can even probably get Redbox to stock it.

Speaking of Tyler Perry, he started “distributing his content” decades ago by
doing stage plays.

People complaining about big media keeping smaller players out is about like
people complaining about not being profitable because of a dependence on
Amazon Retail or Google ads. If your entire business model is based on being a
sharecropper for big media/tech, you’re statistically going to be
disappointed.

There are also small religious studios who are able to find an audience.

~~~
lotsofpulp
I wasn’t clear, but I was writing from the perspective of an investor. No one
is stopping anyone from making content, but for purposes of investing, I’m
claiming that what used to be many media companies available to invest in, are
down to a few, and they will need help from a different business line to stay
afloat.

------
mmastrac
It's somewhat terrifying that a single company will effectively own the
majority whole market for blockbuster films in NA.

Disney has always been a juggernaut but sheesh it's enormous now.

~~~
K0SM0S
My thoughts exactly.

They've pulled off a Google or Facebook level of domination over their market,
it's incredible for a rather old industry.

------
nabla9
I don't think it's about storytelling at all. Star Wars under Disney or Marvel
are not examples of good storytelling.

What Disney understands is the brand management. Disney brands are valuable
because they are familiar, consistent and safe choices. Disney is the stable
food producer in the entertainment business.

Using Scorsese's non-cinema as a label for what Disney does not necessarily
bad. First 3 star Wars Movies were cinema. People were surprised, exited and
blown away. You can't replicate that again and again. Now Star Wars is just
Star Wars. People want stable diet of Star Wars that is just like they
remember it with minor variations. It's watered down, but very familiar. They
keep all the 'best bits' people like. "I have bad feeling about this",
"something something dark side".

~~~
habitue
But the article points out that Disney doing that is exactly why Star Wars
performance has been lackluster. They're now taking a step back because
apparently the public doesn't want a steady drip of Star Wars same-old-same-
old

~~~
scarface74
Star Wars performance “lackluster”? Have you seen the box office returns for
them?

~~~
danShumway
Lackluster compared to Disney's expectations.

I think it's somewhat absurd too, but part of the point being made in the
conversation around this article is that Disney isn't taking risks or making
decisions based on creative output -- they're very, very aggressively
following market trends. Their first Star Wars release was one of their
highest grossing films in something like a decade, but one bad showing from
Solo and suddenly Disney is cutting back on yearly releases.

They want movies that are safe and predictable. They want to know before they
even start production not just that the film will break even, but that it will
make a LOT of money. Clearly based on their own statements, they don't feel
that confident about a yearly Star Wars release.

~~~
scarface74
$1.333 Billion for the Last Jedi was below expectations and $2.08 billion was
“below expectations”?

They made two non trilogy movies. Rogue One was highly rated by both critics
and the audience - Solo not so much.

~~~
danShumway
Don't argue with me, argue with the Disney executives who decided to pull the
brakes on their yearly release schedule.

Disney has different expectations. If anything, the fact that Disney can look
past three high-grossing films and only see the one flop is strong evidence
for what people are talking about here. Disney is risk averse, and they look
at a 75% success rate as risky.

~~~
scarface74
They pull the breaks on their offshoots that’s true. But, one bad release out
of 5 isn’t indicative of any trend.

------
tamalpais
I have _so_ much respect for Disney and Bob Iger in particular. But something
feels lacking about a single company controlling all the best-loved stories in
a culture. It’s like a monopoly on sentiment.

Until the last 100 years or so it’s been the case that a given culture’s
stories — folklores, mythologies, and religions — were in the public domain.
And while they were at times subject to tight control, e.g., non-vernacular
liturgies, they were more typically “owned” by everyone.

I don’t mean this as a criticism of copyright. I support copyright and how it
incentivizes cultural creation. But I wonder about whether there’s space for
more stories we all own, that can be interpreted by everyone, and, most
importantly, that create the same powerful feelings of attachment Disney is so
good at creating.

~~~
SllX
The stories that Disney owns are just a drop in the bucket compared to the
whole rest of the world. I mean, no matter what you watch, read, play or
listen to, there's only so many hours in the day for any of it. I remember the
Aladdin and Lion King movies of my youth fondly, but no more fondly than say,
Sonic the Hedgehog, Super Smash Bros., Astro Boy, Final Fantasy, Lord of the
Rings, Pac-Man, Pokémon, His Dark Materials, Animorphs, or the Harry Potter
books. Last I checked, Disney doesn't own any of that and those were just the
first handful of examples I pulled out of my hat. I think our media habits are
even more fragmented nowadays than they were in my youth, and that's in part
because YouTube, Steam, Twitch, Netflix, and the million and one other
streaming services we have today didn't exist in the 90s. I think Cable TV was
the new hotness, and _that_ was choice compared to mere broadcast television.

~~~
freddie_mercury
What's more movies get privileged in a weird way over other things. _Avengers:
Endgame_ brought in $2.7 billion and is the highest grossing film of all time.
Only 5 films ever have broken $2 billion.

 _Phantom of the Opera_ the musical has made $6 billion, blowing Avengers out
of the water. _Wicked_ the musical has grossed $3 billion, more than any movie
ever made. Same for _Mamma Mia!_.

 _Call of Duty: Modern Warfare (2019)_ made $600 million in the first
72-hours, far more than any movie ever. _League of Legends_ makes $1.4 billion
a year, again more than any movie ever made. _Fortnite_ makes $2.4 billion.

In the UK, more people watched _The X Factor_ than _Star Wars: The Force
Awakens_. The book _Diary of a Wimpy Kid_ sold over a million copies in its
latest installment.

Yet none of those things enter conversations about cultural affinity in the
same way movies do.

~~~
tanilama
> Yet none of those things enter conversations about cultural affinity in the
> same way movies do.

Really? What cultural affinity is there for Avengers? For Force Awakens?

I would argue movies have built an establishment of critics around itself, the
disclosure surrounding it does appear to be more sophisticated and
intellectual. But that doesn't mean the it is shaping the audience's
perception the same way.

~~~
krapp
>Really? What cultural affinity is there for Avengers? For Force Awakens?

The Avengers is a part of a comic franchise that is almost 50 years old, and
Star Wars basically invented the science fiction movie blockbuster over 40
years ago. Both have been deeply influential on generations of people and on
the way their respective genres have been portrayed in all media.

To question whether there is cultural affinity for either is to fundamentally
misunderstand modern Western pop culture, because these properties are more
influential to it than the Bible and Shakespeare.

------
awl130
Author fails to establish a solid correlation (let alone causal relationship)
between "storytelling" and affinity. Furthermore, author fails to prove that
Disney is better at storytelling than its competitors. He could have first
defined "storytelling" and then provided data-driven proof that Disney focuses
more on it than its competitors. This is simple enough to do by running such a
definition on content (he could use conformity to a three act structure and
run it on all movie scripts in the past 20 years, for example). Otherwise we
are left with the tautology that Disney content performs better than others
because people like it more ("affinity").

------
snowwrestler
This article seems like a long and pseudo-technical way of saying that Disney
makes a lot of money because they make products that a lot of people like.

~~~
throwawayacont
Worse, it reads like a love letter to a $264.87 billion company, a company
responsible for this:

>[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act)

------
eaenki
I like the bear and bull case.

