Streaming Services: First 2023 POWER RANKINGS (And what's up with Prime?)

[trappedslider]

If the reasonable discussion is supposed to be, "Can you please let me enjoy by wizard books without reminding me that my money goes to support something bad," then that's certainly an opinion and you're welcome to have it.

Can you please let me enjoy by wizard books Nintendo, Blizzard-activision, without reminding me that my money goes to support something bad, Disney/insert name of streamer service (removing material in order to NOT pay residuals)

In the grand scheme of things from the money side of things the brand in question is still making money, which is what matters otherwise like i said they would have cut ties/their losses.

Asking fans to keep repurchasing the same books is also a sign of decline. At some point, even the most ardent fan will say "you know, I already have ten copies of this series" and stop purchasing.

I came to this conclusion myself when I realized I had two leatherbound editions of the complete Hitchhikers Guide and didn't need to talk myself into getting a third. (I now just have my favorite leatherbound edition and Kickstarted the big book of Douglas Adams' previously unseen notes and writings.)

I'll keep that in mind next time I see a new edition of LotR or a star wars book.

EDIT: So i found out I was still subbed to netflix when i got notified someone logged into my account from a different state,i logged in changed my password and canceled it lol. I may find a new documentary to watch but i doubt it and nothing else they have has gotten my eye

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

The fact that they're redoing all of their cartoons as not-particularly-good live action remakes -- they're redoing seven year old Moana next -- spells that out pretty clearly.

Well, when the abomination that was the live-action Lion King made more than 1.6 billion at the box office (yeah, surprised me too), and Little Mermaid is already over $185 million, you can't really blame 'em.

 

[Ryujin]

On this, I completely, 100% disagree.

One of the very first things Iger did was get rid of the structure put in by Chapek and oust the people at the top in order to put creatives back in control of the creative area.

To understand Disney, you really have to understand what's going on with that particular corporation over the last five years.

We'll see how that goes over the long term and whether it's just a matter of degree.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

We'll see how that goes over the long term and whether it's just a matter of degree.

Not really. It truly is a difference from the top down.

Chapek may or may not have been bad at a lot of different things, but one thing was well-known; he had zero background in, or understanding of, the issues with the creative side. Iger, despite other issues, was always firmly on the creative side of the business- he was "of the Business."

I think what people might misunderstand is just because someone is "of the Business" doesn't mean that they are going to start producing awesome stuff you like. Hollywood, the industry ... they make crud all the time. Heck, I like A24, and even they are known to make some stinkers. And when you get to the bigger studios, you know ROI is going to be on their minds ... it's just that basic stuff, like talent relations, won't get messed up under Iger. People forget this now, but the beginning of the end wasn't just messing things up with Johansson, or trying to force Pixar and Imagineers to move to Florida right when Florida was becoming politicized .,.. it was also stuff like firing Peter Rice without the usual practice of setting up a deal. Just stupid things.

 

[TheSword]

Finally- the part I bolded? The repeated claims that she's not targeting trans women, just women dressed up like men ....

I can't even. That's the problem. That's the hate. I can't even imagine someone saying that to the people I know, let alone the people in this community and demanding a reasonable conversation about it. But if you want to die on the hill that she is not transphobic, feel free.

And this is the problem that I have. The accusation of hate.

Instead of acknowledging that some men can use protective legislation in bad faith to abuse people. While explaining that it’s a small risk worth taking overall to protect the wider trans community and ensuring that proper safeguards are in place and explaining what those are. Instead you target the person, accused them of hate… as you’ve just don’t to me and try and shut down the discussion. No one learns anything. Other than raising a point gets your shot down.

I’m a openly gay man. When a customer came up to me today and said he didn’t approve of the pride flags in my business and said he would be keeping his children away for the month I explained why pride was important and told him we openly supported LGBT issues all year round and that he should make his decisions accordingly.

The battle for rights come by visibility and persuading people not by shutting down debate.

 

[Zardnaar]

Been ignoring Harry Potter since around 1998. My indifference continues unabated. I never got it saw 1 movie thought it was eh.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

And this is the problem that I have. The accusation of hate.

Instead of acknowledging that some men can use protective legislation in bad faith to abuse people. While explaining that it’s a small risk worth taking overall to protect the wider trans community and ensuring that proper safeguards are in place and explaining what those are. Instead you target the person, accused them of hate… as you’ve just don’t to me and try and shut down the discussion. No one learns anything. Other than raising a point gets your shot down.

I’m a openly gay man. When a customer came up to me today and said he didn’t approve of the pride flags in my business and said he would be keeping his children away for the month I explained why pride was important and told him we openly supported LGBT issues all year round and that he should make his decisions accordingly.

The battle for rights come by visibility and persuading people not by shutting down debate.

The only person shutting down debate about Rowling is ... Rowling, who repeatedly uses threats of legal process against others to stifle accurate comments against her (and, of course, a legal system in the UK that privileges wealthy litigants when it comes to speech claims).

Given the sharp increase in anti-trans and anti-gay activity, I don't think it's that surprising that people do not want their money going to an individual who advocates, platforms, and funds anti-trans activity. To the extent that you wish to keep stating that her rhetoric is not harmful, is not hateful, and that it is appropriate to keep misgendering individuals in order to make rhetorical points ...


I will reasonably disagree with you.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Can you please let me enjoy by wizard books Nintendo, Blizzard-activision, without reminding me that my money goes to support something bad, Disney/insert name of streamer service (removing material in order to NOT pay residuals)

Who the hell is chasing you around, forcing you to have this discussion? You are the one who is making this a major thrust of this thread.

I'll keep that in mind next time I see a new edition of LotR or a star wars book.

Are you seriously suggesting that Lord of the Rings and Star Wars have not peaked, years or decades ago?

Again, you are allowed to like something that is past its prime. But just liking something doesn't magically make it be on a creative or commercial upswing.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Well, when the abomination that was the live-action Lion King made more than 1.6 billion at the box office (yeah, surprised me too), and Little Mermaid is already over $185 million, you can't really blame 'em.

Well, it depends if you think that movie studios should be full of people trying to make art or just creating doodads to sell for money. Even inside most movie studios, that's not a settled issue.

The good news is that Disney can likely only do this stunt once with each of their franchises, unless they decide to do CGI versions of their traditionally animated cartoons, which seems unlikely to be a commercial success.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Well, it depends if you think that movie studios should be full of people trying to make art or just creating doodads to sell for money. Even inside most movie studios, that's not a settled issue.

The good news is that Disney can likely only do this stunt once with each of their franchises, unless they decide to do CGI versions of their traditionally animated cartoons, which seems unlikely to be a commercial success.

Scene: Somewhere in Burbank, within the next decade......

Disney CEO: I wonder how we're going to make more money. I like money. Have I mentioned that recently?

Underling: Yes, you've mentioned that you like yachts, and money buys yachts.

Disney CEO: We just finished releasing all those films. Heck, we even did a live-action version of Fantasia! But ... what was I saying.....

Underling: ...you like money?

Dinsey CEO: Yes! Exactly! I like money. How can we get more money? What would be new, and daring, and innovative ... but most importantly, would leverage our IP in order to get more money?

Underling: How about we take all those live-action movies we just made ... and make them ... animated films?

Disney CEO: What? Like ... an animated Lion King? Is that even possible? Do you think it would make money?

Underling: Uh ...... yes, I think it is possible, and I think it would make money.

Disney CEO: Perfect. I love it when I have great ideas! Stock bonuses for everyone, and by everyone, I mean me!