TV, Film, and Entertainment News Daily

Did Disney Buy Lucasfilm for The Wrong Reasons?

Thinking about the Disney purchase of Lucasfilm this week – Yeah, like you haven’t been doing the same thing – something odd occurred to me. Disney made a point of clarifying that the entire reason it had made the deal was Star Wars, which makes a lot of sense, but made me wonder: Is Disney spending a lot of money on the wrong thing?

It’s not that Star Wars isn’t going to be a particularly profitable purchase for Disney, because – Well, it’s Star Wars; that’s a particularly valuable thing to own. But it’s also something that’s thirty-five years old. Similarly, Marvel Entertainment, which Disney purchased for $4 billion in 2009, hasn’t really had much success when it comes to creating new characters or intellectual property since… what, Deadpool, perhaps? So that’s twenty years now. I’m not criticizing Disney for either purchase, per se; the success of Marvel’s The Avengers proves that there is both life and profit left in exploiting creations that came about decades earlier, if nothing else, so it makes sense from a business sense. But at the same time, I find myself wondering whether Disney should be looking at aggressively funding creators/companies who are trying to come up with new ideas and stories to tell instead of seemingly concentrating on things we’ve seen since childhood. Nostalgia’s a fine thing and all, but eventually, that well’s going to run dry (Especially in the case of the Lucasfilm scenario; once the audience is bored with Star Wars – and, at a new installment every two to three years, that might happen sooner rather than later – then that $4 billion investment is going to suddenly seem a little moot, especially if Indiana Jones and Willow really are off the table entirely as some have reported).

There’s a temptation, I admit, to point at Pixar and say “Do what they did!” Certainly, Pixar has proven that audiences will embrace new ideas, characters and storylines if they’re good enough, and in doing so have created a whole new generation of exploitable franchises for Disney to take advantage of (Seriously, Toy Story is something that Disney’s merchandise department must be grateful for every single day). Even though the cynic in me has been dismayed by Pixar’s returning to the scene of earlier crimes with the Toy Story and Cars sequels and new Monsters University movie, they’re still alternating those with new characters and stories, which is commendable considering the lucrative temptation of the alternative. Even Disney’s own animation department works on new ideas – Okay, new reworkings of established fairy tales, most of the time – albeit those aimed at a very specific audience (and in a very specific genre space). So why not look for the same qualities in more mainstream fare?

What both Lucasfilm and Marvel needs from Disney, ultimately, is the space and time to fail. Both companies have seemingly been purchased with the intent that they are, for all intents and purposes, plug-and-play profit machines with ready-made IP that the audience doesn’t need to be introduced to, and that’s certainly true to some extent, but both companies also employ extremely talented and creative people who could very possibly come up with something that could resonate as strongly with audiences as that which already exists, if only the pressure wasn’t constantly on them to produce, produce, produce. If Disney could look at both companies as long-term prospects and not just short-term gains, and allow some space (and budget) for research and development into the unfamiliar and original, it’s possible that both companies could end up being so much more for Disney than what it appears to think that it’s actually purchased.


  • Sora2

    What about the Runaways and Miles Morales? Those have been popular at Marvel. 

  • Beast

    Or the Young Avengers. And so on…

    Besides, Disney wanted Marvel for what it could do with the characters.

    I swear, this website gets more like Fox News everyday. Full of nonsense.

  • Flsmdz

    I agree with you Beast and may the force be with you.

  • Lierson

    See, that’s the thing: people don’t want new.
    Check the movie releases this year that are related to a previous installment or come from another media. 
    From Total Recall to Ice Age, from the Avengers to Hunger Games to Dark Shadows to John Carter to two Snow White revamps. Where’s the incentive to try something brand new?

  • Rollo Tomassi

    This is why Graeme is not CEO of Disney.

  • Jeffdamiano

    I don’t like the idea that after having something special and finite (only looking at the movies and not comics, novels, etc.) taken away as we now have something that will be pooped out every 2-3 years. They DID mention the comics and novels as possible source material so double down on used idea syndrome! Maybe it wouldn’t seem so greedy if Disney held back the new movies announcement for a few weeks to let the purchase sink in but all this makes Star Wars feel like a cheap hooker. 

  • JumborgAce

    What you have to wonder is “Did Disney get LFL, et. all for less than it is worth?” After all, if GL knew he was just going to give the money away maybe he didn’t negotiate the best price, he just figured “that’s good enough.” This only becomes important if it were possible for his charity to get 5 billion instead of 4, or 50 billion, or whatever.

  • Darkstream

    Um… yeah, let’s just disregard iconic properties, like Star Wars and Marvel, that have huge followings and a history of success in multiple mediums, and instead do something that’s totally new and unfamiliar to audiences, yet will most likely be derivative crap anyway, and surely won’t sell all that well.

    Yeah, I’m sure the guy who suggested that at the board of directors table is now mopping floors in the Disneyland staff cafeteria while still thinking about his dream pitch for a movie that in reality would have maybe had about as much success and cultural impact as Condorman.  

  • Richard Casey

    Yeah, claiming Marvel haven’t had any “successful” new characters since Deadpool seems wrong. There’s the already mentioned Runaways, Young Avengers, Avengers Academy, meanwhile DC haven’t really done ANYTHING new since the 80s, and even then a lot of that “new stuff” was old stuff reimagined.

    Disney needs to give them room to fail? No, Disney needs to let them do EXACTLY WHAT THEY’VE BEEN DOING, because it works. And a couple of years from now, when kids are fighting over who gets to be Rocket Racoon and who has to be Gamorra, every sad little internet hack is going to be spouting off about how they knew Guardians of the Galaxy was a good idea. 

    And was the purchase of Lucasfilm just for Star Wars? No, of course it wasn’t. Sure, that’s been the focus of the announcement, but that’s because IT’S FUCKING STAR WARS. If Disney haven’t already go plans in place to take control of the other Lucasfilm properties (Indiana Jones obviously, but there’s plenty of other stuff there too) I’d be amazed.

    What Disney needs to do is take the pots at the end of rainbows worth of money they’re going to make from just owning Lucasfilm and the revenue that generates, and make Fox an offer they can’t refuse to buy back EVERY. SINGLE. MARVEL. PROPERTY. THAT would be the smart thing to do.

  • Richard Casey

    I’m sorry, how does John Carter fit into that? And I suppose LOOPER, that failed miserably right? And of course BRAVE was just an unoriginal piece of crap we’ve all seen before, not to mention Chronicle, Cabin in the woods, The Master, Safety not Guaranteed, the upcoming Django unchained, Paranorman, Frankenweenie, Seven psychopaths…

    I could go on, but I don’t need to. Stop claiming there’s nothing new out there, there’s plenty, you just don’t want to acknowledge that fact because then you might have to pull your head out of your jaded, unimportant arse and realize the only unoriginal thing in this conversation is your post.

  • NeronWillRise

    Miles Morales is SPIDER-MAN. The Young Avengers are AVENGERS. Neither count. Runaways was only modestly successful if at all. I don’t care how many dozen of fans like it, it didn’t sell or there would be a Runaways book out today. Face it, Deadpool was the last one.

  • daye

    Top 10 highest-grossing movies of all time 8 out of 10 are already established properties. Top 20=17 out of 20, Top 30=26 out of 30.

  • Richard Llanton

    I believe we currently live in an era of franchises and branding. :points to the highest grossing movies and video games: That is guaranteed money, regardless of the quality. What Disney has the power to do, like so many other creative companies, is use those profits to invest in newer intellectual properties rather than falling back on the same old things. Nevertheless, the Walt Disney company is a business interested in making money and keeping their stockholders happy. 

  • daye

    That’s like saying Deadpool is a X-Men so he doesn’t count. 

  • illmadeknight

    I swear half the commentors on this article have no courage at all. They way I read this article is that while the “tried and true” have value and should be used to generate profits, do not be afraid to put some of that money and time into developing something new *AS WELL*. You have massively creative people at Marvel and Lucasfilms. While you are working on Avengers and further Star Wars Episodes, lets also try to utilize that creativity and come up with something that might last another thirty-five years. Yes, I think the author may be a bit doom and gloom in that nostalgia will only carry you so far, but I’ve already heard rumblings here and there about comic book fatigue. That stuff goes in cycles. We are only a “Batman and Robin” away from it being abandoned again.

  • Semicyon3

    I wish that Graeme’s actual posts were interesting/insightful/compelling as the headline. There’s a false dilemma presented here: Disney has enough cash to purchase Lucasfilm AND fund new projects… and they do. Check out for all the stuff they do own. There’s a LOT of new IP they do with Disney-ABC Television group.

  • The Gorn Identity

    MSNBC would be a better analogy. ;)

  • Michael

    If you stop and think about it, both Marvel and Lucasfilm were started by maverick, “outside-the-box” thinkers, who were rejecting the premises of the establishment of their time. 

    Stan Lee, Jack Kirby, and Steve Ditko created a universe full of “heroes with problems” and story threads that carried through multiple issues, an idea that was completely unheard of at the time.

    George Lucas left Hollywood and the Director’s Guild just so he could present Star Wars the way he wanted to (i.e. no opening credits), and started ILM, with folks like Dennis Muren who were constantly coming up with new innovations that have since been used in hundreds (if not thousands) of movies.

    If you’d like an example outside of the artistic world, look at Steve Jobs and Woz (sorry, can’t spell his name) and the ideas they had.  IBM thought they were crazy, but who turned out to be right?

    Large corporations are about the bottom line and “proven sellers”.   If you don’t believe me, go to your local Best Buy and look for CDs by modern, indie artists and then compare that number to how many Beatles, Zeppelin, Eagles, etc. albums.   As the article states, this is a smart business move by Disney.  And while Disney has had new ideas over the years as pointed out by Richard Casey below, look for the next revolution will come from somewhere else.   It might be happening in a garage near you. 

  • Rwcastromiller30

    Disney knows exactly what they are doing with this move, just like they did with Marvel.  Sure, they never mentioned anything beyond Star Wars, but that’s because that is the first thing that pops into the mind of the general public.  Disney had multiple reasons to buy Lucasfilm that they didn’t need to mention.  We can’t act like they aren’t going to profit off of ILM, Lucasarts, Skywalker sound and whatever other development properties Lucasfilm owns.  Even if Disney can’t own Indiana Jones and Willow because of legal hell, there are countless money making opportunities that make this a worthwhile investment. 

  • percane

     it’s not that people don’t want new, they want GOOD. this article implies that new = good, and old = bad, and that the only thing carrying the properties to profitability is nostalgia. i’m sorry, but the avengers made barrels of money because it was good, not because of fanboy nostalgia. most people had never heard of captain america, thor, iron man, etc before the movies (exception being the hulk)

    and with star wars, for disney, it’s not about the movies, it’s about the MERCHANDISING

    Mr McMillan’s articles are usually way off base, but i guess they do generate hits with people like us coming in to correct him

  • area 51 comics

    The new trilogy will be entirely new characters, well distant from the other 6, mark my words! They have even speculated doing an Avengers style introduction with many of the characters leading to Star Wars 7. Lucas every time he speculated over how he would end it, said he would set it about 1000 years n the future to see the effects of ROTJ and how it shapes the galaxy. 3 new movies with new characters, new ships & new villains & 100’s of new aliens. The only things that will be similar are the force the Jedi the Sith the Planets, some of the older beloved alien species may either come to the forefront as main characters wile they will nod to old characters. What Disney has to face is the previous Sci Fi live action they have (Tron, the Black Hole, & John Carter) didn’t live up to the epic name of Star Wars, but then again neither did much of the prequels.

  • percane

     yep, and really, we have since the 80s and the original star wars trilogy. that was gary kurtz’s big complaint about george and why they split after empire: it became more about merchandising and selling toys than about the story

  • David Fullam

     Oh of course, Toy Story. That was totally new. As we know no one ever did a story where toys came to life before.

  • Omegasaga

    I dont get the point of this article….  Lucas selling his empire to Disney ensures the future of Star Wars indefinitly….. Marvel too.

    Even with hit or miss multi media output from both— thats what a franchise is… an enduring property that has the pockets to fail, thrive, and go through various cycles.

    I dont see the problem at all here.

  • David Fullam

     Well it’s Graeme, what do you expect?

  • SHAH

    Are you serious? DC hasn’t had anything new? Or anything that wasn’t reimagined?

    –Blue Beetle
    –The Entire GL Franchise

    And a few others.

    You name Young *AVENGERS*, and *AVENGERS* Academy, like those aren’t reimagined properties. And Runaways? You serious? Ask the average person what a “Runaway” is, and they’ll point to some stray kid standing on a street corner, not the comic book by the same name.

    And Miles Morales fits into that same mold as well; a reimagined character. Last I checked, he’s still SPIDER MAN.

    The author of the article is right, not much has come from Marvel in the past 2 decades.

  • Dswynne1

    I really hope that a “Willow” and Indiana Jones movie will be made.

  • Docknock

    Disney is too smart to just be purchasing LucasFilm for Star Wars.  I am sure they are eyeing Howard the Duck and Willow! 
    Seriously though, I think the purchase of and then the staying out of the way of ILM and Skywalker sound is a pretty shrewd move.  

  • BradRz

    According to the Hollywood Reporter, last year, Star Wars brought in $3 billion in merchandising revenue alone. It’s also been the best-selling boys’ toy line year after year. This isn’t about cashing in on our generation’s nostalgia; it’s about what kids today are buying. That’s why Disney bought Lucasfilm. The movies are just a small part of it. Over the past fifteen years, the ‘Star Wars’ brand has become to the male toy market what ‘Barbie’ is to the girls.

  • Alex

    Disney is spending money on what they always have… more money.

  • magnuskn

    Yeah, the idea that Marvel hasn’t created new characters in the last 20 years is false. Star Wars also has created a lot of new stuff within its universe. So, the whole argument fails on its wrongheaded basis alone.

  • Adsdfsfs

    Do a find and replace for the word “Lucasfilm” with “Marvel” and this is the EXACT same article full know-nothing gibberish that woulda popped up 2 years ago.

  • ray

    i hope they buy star trek.

  • Joshua S May

    Why are we so hung up on original material. Some of the best stories in our shared western culture have been told and retold over hundreds of years with each story teller adding their own take, creating something rich and worth treasuring. Don’t get me wrong, it’s nice to hear a new story, but this modern hang up we seem to have developed that re-telling/imagining a old story = bad is not a good thing.

  • Juan

    Frankenweenie is a remake

  • Drew G

    I think the point was that Marvel hasn’t created any sustainable new characters in in a couple of decades.  Runaways has a very strong fan base but not a very big one which is why none of the various attempts at series have lasted more than a couple of years.  There hasn’t been enough Young Avengers material to determine its actual success.  However, as in the case with Miles Morales, they are based on or inspired by familiar characters already.

    I heartily disagree with the rest of the article.  You don’t invest 4 billion dollars into something just to make a quick buck off of it.

  • AJ2449

    Those characters are trivial and have minimal chance of success. 
    Star Wars was the *Only* reason to make this deal. 

    A Boba Fett movie alone (plus sequels) could likely top $1B

  • AJ2449

    sigh …. if only Disqus had a “thumbs down” button. 

  • NeronWillRise

    No it’s not actually and only a fool would think so. Deadpool ISN’T an X-Man. Unless you count X-Force which he’s no longer in and it wasn’t what created his popularity. He sustains himself strictly on the name Deadpool ALONE. People like Deadpool, not because of his weak links or lackthereof to the X-Men. Deadpool is the last new character, regardless of where he spun off from, to be self-sustaining in the marketplace.

    Ultimate Spider-Man sells because Spider-man is in the title. If Miles Morales had another name, the book would fail. That’s just reality. Young Avengers, same thing. The established name is selling the book, not the character. That’s not to say that they’re not good books, but facts is facts.

    DC is my favorite company, but they haven’t done any better.

  • Ziggy Blumenthal

    Wait a sec… Did you just use Blue Beetle and The Green Lantern Corps as examples of wholly new ideas that weren’t based on an older idea???

  • Cable9245

    What of the t.v. series that Lucus wanted to do? Are they going to scrap it now

  • Demoncat4

    not to mention that certain parts of both marvel and lucas films were by the time of purchase already had some pieces nabbed by other studioes namely some of the marvel big guns like spider man out to sony and also the park rights . plus sooner or later unless they do the expanded universe stuff star wars will run out of steam  for fans will get tired of the same old same. old. even star wars 

  • Dnlsokoloff

    This is such a stupid article. Disney is a shark, and the blood it is attracted to are huge franchises.

  • philip a moore

    the sequal to willow was alread finished over ten years ago cheack Aamzon under the name Chris clarmont so why would they go back to it? as for indiana that probably has alot to with shya labuff more then anything else as for lucas it is a great investment even with out the star wat  it has done alot to develop special effects over the years and that alone will get the money back  

  • Rcoughler

    In 1961 Disnet purchased licensing rights for an intellectual property that was 37 years old, 2 years older then the Star Wars franchise is now. Did they make a mistake acquiring Winnie the Pooh? You guys tell me…

  • Rcoughler

    Disney! Not Dinet…D’oh

  • Melwing

     A fella named Kick-Ass might deserve a mention as well :)

  • daye

    The only reason he has sustain himself is the X-Men Origin: Wolverine movie, and he’s not doing that great anyway he sells in the same range as FF (a book staring the Fantastic Four’s kids) and Scarlet Spider (staring a clone from one of the most infamous stories in comic history). Also the fact the he’s in a X-Men movie kind of speaks volumes on how Marvel views him as a X-character, and showing a blind eye to his heavy X-roots his very sad on your part, because you even mention it. Must be a new reader.

  • Andrew Foley

    Marvel/Disney doesn’t own Kick-Ass. Millar & Romita do.

  • guest

    The point of this article is that Graeme is an attention whore.

  • Jude

    Yes, I truly believe corporations which toss around billions of dollars should be taking advice from…sorry, who are you again? 

  • Guest 1

    Deadpool was in X-Men Origins: Wolverine? Ohhhh you are talking about that weird mutated Ryan Reynolds thing near the end of the movie, aren’t you? Yeah, that was no where close to who Deadpool really is. No one would’ve watched that movie and walked away saying, “Gee golly, I wonder if that bald mute thing with swords in his arms has a comic book.”

  • Tyler

    This is, easily, the dumbest post I’ve ever read from Graeme.

    And that’s saying a LOT.

  • Julio Perez

    I don’t think that this is going to bad at all. Just don’t go overboard like those people at They are too EU extremist and one day they hate GL and te next they love him. Disney will do pretty good with the property the problem  is that this is all new to everyone We don’t really know if it really is going to work or not.

  • Goshogun

    Graeme is a secret WB or Fox stooge,actually jealous that Disney bought Star Wars

  • Lukecage

    Wow.  This article is dumb.  Both companies are cash cows, with tons of history and characters to explore.  Also, they do employ creators, who actually do create.  Like I said, DUMB.

  • Mitch Carpenter

    Disney was built on re-telling stories that were centuries old.  They’re not looking for fresh and innovative; they’re looking for established characters with dedicated fans.  I’m not saying that’s necessarily bad, since Avengers kicked ass, and I fully expect Star Wars VII to be awesome, but that’s just the nature of the beast.  This was all about business, not art.

  • Sally Vandershaf

    Disney bought Lucasfilm for the same reason any corporation does anything: to make money. Disney doesn’t want to invent new charatcers. They want to buy the rights to globally famous characters and then moetize the hell out of them, because that’s a much surer route to vast riches.

    They’ll recast the OT characters with young actors and use their famous names to get audiences to the theater. If they wanted to be original, they wouldn’t have bought an existing brand in the first place. imagine all the original stuff you could make for four billion dollars.

  • Darcey McLaughlin

    I get what you are saying in this article, but I disagree. If established properties are cared for and well done, the audience will embrace it. Spider-Man has been around for a lot longer than Star Wars and the character remains popular and profitable. Movie goers embraced the last film after a less than stellar outing in the third.

    Star Trek is another great example. It was only a few years ago people were talking about Trek fatigue. But what the last film showed is that if you take an established property and do a good job updating them, they can remain fresh. As long as you don’t allow stuff like Nemesis to happen fans will remain loyal.

    Disney makes few mistakes when it comes to producing quality media. Very few Disney films get poor reviews. There are a few stinkers in there, but they have a proven track record. It’s not so much about nostalgia as taking great characters and doing good movies or shows with it.

    And as far as profit, let’s be quite honest, the money here is in the licensing. Box office profits look good, but licensing is where the dollars are. Take a walk through a Walmart toy department. It’s lined with Star Wars toys. That’s pure profit for Lucasfilm. Every t-shirt, lunchbox. And While Indiana Jones and Willow may not be available for film, they can still merchandise those properties.

    And even with the films. Paramount isn’t stupid. They are going to realize that sitting on Indiana Jones means they only profit by selling home video releases. If they work a deal with Disney, perhaps for a percentage of any future films, it is entirely possible Disney could go forward with more Indiana Jones movies.

    And as far as people getting board, I might point out that one of the most talked about movies right now is Skyfall, the new James Bond movie. The death of 007 as a film franchise has been predicted time and again and yet here we are talking about another film with big anticipation.

    I think Star Wars will be just fine.

  • Joe

    Hasn’t this ship already sailed?

  • daye

    Hey I’m not saying it was good ether, I’m just saying that’s when people started to give a crap about Deadpool or at the least Marvel and his fans started to tell us we should give a crap.

  • Skot860

    wow. lofty hopes there.

  • AJ2449

    maybe.. but the first 3 Spider-Man movies have grossed about $2.6B worldwide. 

    (and if they threw in a young Han & Lando, then a $1B estimate is probably Low..) 

  • marko

    Disney is the new Electronic Arts.

  • Ernie

    What about Cable, Stryfe, Bishop????

  • Thomas Wrobel

    Marvels probably created a lot more new things then Disney ;)
    (Disneys improved a lot recently, but come on….the whole company has always been based on classic IPs)

    $4billion was crazy cheap really for Lucas given it the studio, the IPs, the gamerights etc. 

  • Chris Humphrey

    Nah, Fox

  • Topten Jesus

    …Well…Marvel and Star Wars weren’t actually doing what Disney wants and is doing with them – which is make new and better movies.  Star Wars has a history of being stagnant on the big screen when there is tremendous pent up desire for more offerings.  The material is out there it’s just not being used.  Look at Warner Brothers struggling at every turn to put out a Justice League movie and look at who finally pulled the right strings to put out an amazing Avengers movie.  And besides, the biggest thing holding Star Wars back over the years has been Lucas insisting on writing and directing – get someone else behind the camera and on those scripts and we may be getting more Empire Strikes Back and less Phantom Menace, then watch it explode.

  • Gac

    Share Price motivates everything. 

  • Atomic Kommie Comics

    “I’m sorry, how does John Carter fit into that?”

    He’s been around for over a century in books and comics?

  • Orphan

    Sorry Darkstream,but what’s Iconic now may not be decades from now.The response has been primarily from the merchandise and not so much from Disney successfully rebooting it’s own Iconic characters in a storytelling sense. All the success is due to Pixar and the Disney vampires claiming it as their own intellectual success.Disney is strictly marketing and the purchase of Lucasfilms is just Disney grabbing a bigger market share.It’s all about corporate control of the marketplace.Otherwise if your premise on Iconics and their long lives held true we would see Disney grabbing more PD or soon to be PD like Phantom,Shadow,Savage,Cisco Kid etc.because we know how Disney hates paying royalties to anyone.As far as live action after John Carter they’ve pretty much destroyed any interest I would have in future Star Wars films.

  • Bridgekeepers

    Totally agree . . . but I’m not sure they aren’t doing this already.  Guardians of the Galaxy?  Ant-Man?  Certainly not the “too popular to fail” projects like X-Men, Spider-Man and (now) Avengers.  It will be interesting to see what Disney will do with the Lucasfilm projects they do get – Star Wars continuing is a forgone conclusion.  It was before Disney came into the picture, just not on the big screen, with books, Clone Wars, the developing live-action TV series.  This whole things seems more like Lucasfilm was in that direction already, and George just wanted to hand it off to the company most capable of pulling off his original vision.  And when you look at the entertainment industry landscape, Disney most aptly fit the bill.

  • NeronWillRise

    I know all about his X-Men roots, but they’re just not important to his popularity. I’m simply not blind. Deadpool is popular because he’s funny and unique. He sells in the same range as FF, but he’s doing it on his own. No strong ties to any other pre-made franchise. I want you to point out any character doing the same. I’ll wait. And the idea that X-Men Origins made Deadpool popular? You must be kidding. Casual fans didn’t go pick up comics because of that movie (or any other superhero movie for that matter) and the die-hard comic fans hated it.

  • Michael Clark

    I would actually agree. In 2009 when Disney acquired Marvel (and my world crumbled), Disney said one thing. WE WANT THEM FOR THE MOVIES, and stuck to that, making movies every year and is poised to throw this down our throats. if you want an example of how Disney butchers a franchise, look at Power Rangers. Haim Saban when he sold it to Disney 10 years ago, was so happy and optimistic for the house of mouse to push it in a new direction, and Disney just used it to say “HEY GUYS! WE ARE NOT ALL PRINCESSES AND GIRLS!” and they lost direction and destroyed the franchise to the point Haim Saban came in and bought the franchise back, inked a deal with netflix, hulu and nickelodeon to have the shows on multiple platforms and networks. 

    sooner or later, Marvel will be sucked dry and some capitalist company will come in and purchase it, and by that time it may be too late. 

  • Audrey4

    Can I point out that Pixar is owned by Disney? So by saying that Disney should concentrate and shift their gears towards how Pixar is performing, it means the same thing as Disney should do what Disney is doing….?

  • orphan

    The whole point of my arguement on this topic is that ownership does not equate creative control and it would be interesting to see how deep into Pixar’s creative pool Disney is. Besides marketing and distribution we can only hope that as big a disaster as Disney has been creatively lately that Pixar stil develops it’s projects independently.My suspicion is that some of the unfortunate sequals may be Disney’s fault.That does not seem to be the case with Star Wars because they will have full creative control with out any buffer of creative teams that know what the heck they are doing as opposed to Disney’s cadre of illiterate bean counters.As far as future Star Wars films go I’ve already thrown in the towel.