Disney/Pixar In General

I should note that Lindsay recommends Disney War at the end of her video; and incidentally, she's speaking the truth about that as well. It's an account of Eisner's years running the company, and a lot of the stuff in it - well, suffice it to say, you want to know why people hated Eisner and wanted him gone? Read it.

Amazingly enough some of the nasty stuff about Eisner in the book he told the author himself.

I never read the book, but based on what I picked up about Eisner, I wouldn't even give him credit for the Disney Renaissance. I tend to think that Wells was actually the one responsible for it, along with Menken and Ashman, but mostly Wells, because he managed to keep Eisner's and Katzenberg's worst tendencies in check. Once he died, everything went downhill, up to the point at which Iger took over.

There is one thing I give Eisner credit for, though: That he immediately told Comcast "no" when they wanted to buy Disney. Granted, that move also lead to him getting pushed up of the company (not because the shareholder wanted to sell, but because they were p... that Eisner just made this decision as if he owned the company), but at the very least Comcast was shown the middle finger.

At this point Disney is the last studio left which is purely in the entertainment business, and I want it to stay that way.

What about Paramount?

If someone asked me two years ago which studio will be bought off first, my bet would have been Paramount. The studio is struggling, hard, and frankly the only reason why it is still around is because the family who owns it doesn't want to get rid of what is the second oldest studio out there. Paramount won't survive this. Disney will.

Aren't all of these studios old? When Fox officially transfers to Disney. I want a meme of Kent Brockman saying "I for one welcome our Mouse eared overlords."

What exactly do you mean by "purely in the entertainment business"?

I assume he means studios that aren’t owned by telecommunications (Universal, WB) or technology (Sony) companies.

Yep, I mean studios which are mainly studios...I just don't like that Warner and Universal are both owned by telecommunication companies which already have a considerable monopoly due to this fact alone. I wouldn't mind quite as much in Sony's case if not for the fact that nearly all of their movies are stuffed with Sony products. Nothing against a little bit product placement, but they do it to a level which is really distracting. Takes me out of the movie every single time.

I think it is just a difference if the entertainment is the very core of a company, or if it is treated more like a nice little side project to make more money. Naturally Disney is more than just a movie studio, but everything they do is about entertainment, weather it is in the media, on the stage or in their parks.

Regarding the age of the Studios: well, yeah, they are kind of pretty old...Sony pictures is technically Columbia, which was founded in 1918. Warner was founded in 1923, Paramount in 1916 and Universal in 1912 (which makes it the oldest American studio). Disney is actually the only studio which is not part of the original Big Five (which makes it even more impressive that it is now part of the Big Six soon to be Five...well, if you still want to count Paramount as part of the group).

Edited by Swanpride on Aug 4th 2018 at 1:52:30 AM

Man I am really tired of plot twist villains. Coco would honestly have been good if the villain was not a villain, was asking for redemption, and it literally was more of a good faith thing. And we could have done with villain-less movies anyway.

Bolt for instance was really good about it.

As predicted, Christopher Robin is banned in China.

Christoper Robin didn't have a plot twist villain! :P

SSSHHH!!

That's such a formula now that revealing it is a major spoiler.

Wait, what's in Christopher Robin that's bannable? Being able to call out your employer?

No...something related in Pooh being said to be similar to Xi Jinping and used as a butt of jokes.

He has never heard of the Streisand effect, right? I bet there will be even more jokes comparing him to Pooh now...

I thought the Xi Jinping joke was a recent development. Also, I find that pretty funny since the Tao of Pooh is a thing.

Edited by Weirdguy149 on Aug 6th 2018 at 9:56:55 AM

Some of the things Pooh says are bizarrely philosophical read in a particular light, especially in Milne's original works.

There's also something to be said in how complex the cast is in spite of often working off of one defining quirk, something almost every writer seems to inherently get right by some miracle, even for the cheapest of cash cow projects.

Edited by Psi001 on Aug 6th 2018 at 3:00:45 PM

It is against the law in China to publicly mock the prime minister- political satire there is nearly non-existent. To them he is 100% perfect, can do no wrong, and can punish or even murder you if you do public protests against him. Pooh for decades has been used to refer to him in satirical cartoons and the country has passed laws prohibiting any movie that run there as a result. In recent times they went softer on their use of Pooh like allowing merchandise being sold, but never in association with the Xi man. That said, Christopher Robin will still be banned from playing anywhere in China.

Edited by kyun on Aug 6th 2018 at 8:39:54 AM

That is so colossally ridiculous. It doesn't surprise me, and shouldn't surprise anyone else, but I still feel the need to just say that it's colossally ridiculous.

Yes, but dictators are often colossally ridiculous themselves.

Well China is a communist country, so I can't say I'm surprised. But the worst part? ... it WORKS. China is the most prosperously economical country in the world, their cities are the most luxurious and progressive, and you can bet that as long as Xi is the leader, they won't even attempt to overrule him.

Eh, a large percentage of China's population lives in poverty with no change to raise up, there is next to no worker protection, and god help you if you somehow end in the crossfire of the regime. Even if it is just by living at a place they want to use for something else.

Not that I think that a revolution is likely, but things aren't exactly rosy in China...unless you are a woman. Due to the one child policy being paired with parents ensuring that their one child would be a boy, females are in high demand.

Wasn’t the one child policy abolished recently?

Yeah, a lot of projections predict that their population may collapse somewhere around mid-century.

As it is, they've got a few ghost cities, huge well designed, modern cities, that hardly anyone lives in because most of their population can't afford it.

It's not all about economic prosperity, either, so much as the public mentality. Just take a look at North Korea.

Edited by Robbery on Aug 6th 2018 at 10:59:12 AM

True China like the US is incredibly large, most of which is home to poor working class (or no workers at all), and it's hard to balance out the economic state of the entire area like that, especially if the leaders live in the cities.