Disney/Pixar In General

Or buying their merchandise or anything to do with them

Sometimes that's really hard because they are almost everywhere,accidentally buying into them without resizing is easily done especially when they maintain a monopoly

edited 15th Dec '17 11:12:12 AM by Ultimatum

So this is an interesting development: .... apparently the two most recent Dragonball Z movies, as well as Dragonball Evolution, are owned by FOX. So in a sense, Movie!Goku is now under Disney!

I doubt even Disney could salvage that.

They also get the Percy Jackson movies back (they published the books), although they probably want to forget they ever happened.

There is a fan rumor that Disney might let go of Blue Sky and let them be bought by someone else. Makes sense - Disney already is in charge of 2 animation studios as it is that both do extremely well.

The sad part is that this merger is projected to get rid of 5,000 - 10,000 jobs.

My vote is for Paramount buying Blue Sky.

I hope I didn't create said fan rumour by repeatedly pointing out that Disney might be better off to just resell Blue Sky to Paramount or perhaps Sony. It's not like the Blue Sky IP are particularly valuable, after all.

Three animation studios. Aside from Disney Proper and Pixar, there is also the studio/division (honestly, the restructured that so often, I have given up a long time ago on figuring this out) which is responsible for their TV and Direct to Video output.

edited 16th Dec '17 8:06:44 AM by Swanpride

Cartoon Brew and other sources did state that rumor too.

@Kyun: If it's making you feel any better, not a lot of them will likely from the creative side but rather the overlapping areas of the Fox-Disney company (Ex: Marketing, event planner, PA for the old executives etc.)

Also, not all of those jobs which vanish necessarily translate into someone getting fired. They might simply not replace certain positions when the employee leaves as well shuffling them to other departments. At the same time there will new jobs be created elsewhere. For example nowadays there are way more people working at Lucasfilm than back when Disney took over. There are way more people working for Marvel studios because their output has doubled and is about to get triples. There are now was more people working for Marvel television, because they actually do Live action TV now and have more cartoon shows going.

Not claiming that all is rosy and that nobody will put at disadvantage, but this is not the case of a foreign investor coming in and moving production to elsewhere.

Plus, it can't be worse to work under Disney than working for the Murdoch empire.

Sorry to divert, but I've been wondering, how have the Disney Signature Edition releases been doing sale wise, and has there been news on any further releases?

It's a wonder nobody's yet posted here to remark how 80 years ago today, Snow White And The Seven Dwarfs premiered in Hollywood - and thus proved that full-length animated films could be successful, both in profit and in quality.

Really? I'm surprised Disney itself hasn't even remarked on it.

Or you know made another anniversary release.

I’m sure they’re saving that for the century mark.

Just finished watching Sleeping Beauty tonight while it isn't one of my favourites it is a pretty good film. It's a lot more darker and edgier for an early Disney Princess film, the animation is gorgeous and Maleficent is a pretty iconic villainess and the three good fairies are actually quite competent characters. I actually enjoyed more than I was expecting granted not everyone's going to gauge much from it because of the simple plot and the fact that Aurora's pretty bland as a character and doesn't show up much I can honestly understand why that's the case. For me I think it prefer a lot more over Cinderella mainly because there's a lot more going on in that film than there was in Cinderella at least in my opinion.

How ironic Maleficent turned three of Disney's first physically effective female heroines into blundering fools.

edited 21st Dec '17 5:33:10 PM by Psi001

Yeaaaah as far I'm concerned Maleficent was not really necessary in terms of the live action remake films. At least with The Jungle Book they expanded upon the original, whilst Maleficent I feel just misses the point of what was good about the original movie. Plus what was there to gain from just learning about Maleficent's backstory? We had already known what her character was like anyway.

Unfortunately, the Three Fairies suffer from being old and unattractive. Popular consciousness is therefore compelled to either forget they exist or downplay their roles and accomplishments in favor of fawning over the pretty princess and sexy evil queen. Go society.

edited 21st Dec '17 5:56:55 PM by IniuriaTalis

Well they still like promoting the Seven Dwarfs as much as Snow White.

Well at the very least I'll take a princess whose hardly in her own film rather than a squeaky clean sappy one like Snow White.

I heard somewhere that the only reason Maleficent was made is that they were denied permission to adapt Wicked.

Men are allowed to be ugly. Women aren't.

I also believe that's why they cast Idina Menzel in Frozen. And also why they made their own Wizard of Oz movie. ... butt-hurt executives.

Maybe they just don't like Wicked.

No. When you watch those you kind of get the idea they really wanted to do that, but weren't happy that Universal beat them to it. (And why you would want to adapt it is a mystery to me.)