Google has much more control over our public dialog than Disney does.
Google and Disney clearly have two very different set of influences, but to imply that Disney has little control is simply wrong. Ultimately the buck stops with our various representatives, but Disney has some serious skin in the game of keeping the status quo intact.
Suffice to say, their "Disney Vault" promotional tactic couldn't exist in a world where (what most people consider) sane copyright laws existed, and I've yet to see an argument that reasonably suggests that kind of behavior is good for our culture.
Disney in reality has much less control over our culture than many other companies, including many other media companies. The fact of their purchasing Lucasfilm doesn't change that. It's alarmist to suggest that owning Star Wars is going to give Disney some kind of undue influence. If anything, it's likely to improve that terribly corrupted and besmirched franchise.
Good day to you sir.
Disney has the power and money to hire whole teams of psychologist to analyze how to very subliminally affect their movies in such a way that the merchandise etc will sell more, bringing more and more cash in their pockets.
Take for example Donald Duck (in the cartoons). He is always depicted as a unlucky main protagonist who is being ruled by the rich Scrooge. No matter what he does or how much he works, he never becomes in control of his own life, usually being controlled by the Rich Banker Uncle Scrooge.
This tells our children that no matter what you do, you will always be controlled by those who have more money and can tell you to do whatever they please. Not in so direct way, but in a more subtle way it creates a world view that keeps this model in it's current place.
But this is not the main point, the main point is that for Disney and these other big companies, money goes beyond anything. This affects deeply their moral values that are put into their products and what motivation is being the driving force behind producing their movies. It's not the great stories, or changing the world, but about money. This is not a good thing, from many viewpoints. They are not focusing on sustainability, but on maximizing their incomes. This is reflected to all those little children who watch their movies or cartoons.
Those who own Disney are those with great money in their pockets. They will want to keep us passive consumers who will be hooked into their stories (which many are just copies from folk tales, like the Lion King which a pretty much direct copy from the story of Kimba the White Lion) and sell us Toys & Fast Food.
Have you seen the movies these days ? It's all about selling more copies of DVD:s of the latest blockbuster movie to the parents of the children. First creating a need in these children to look up to these movies and characters, then telling them that there are toys, sugar & caffeine filled drinks and fast food available related to these characters, hooking them (literally with caffeine, sugar, fat) to these products and the feelings related to those.
Think about it. Really. Do you want Disney to be raising your children ?
Every American sits and stares passively at ABC television for about 6 hours per week, every week. It's totally silly to suggest that that could have any effect on culture though, right?
Think about it with an analogy. Google is more valuable than Facebook, despite the huge amount of time people spend engaged with Facebook, because Google's users come to the site with a task that inherently equates with purchasing intent. It is possible to capture a great deal of people's attention without changing their decisionmaking process.
I dispute that there are many judgements people make that use Disney media properties as a resource. The Internet is already a far more influential force on our culture than any mass-media property is.
(a) Coca Cola employs many thousands of marketing people who must, to justify their salary, come up with venues to feature the Coke brand.
(b) Mass marketing is notoriously terrible with metrics, so it's not an extraordinary claim to suggest that maybe Coke is investing in some marketing that doesn't much help it.
(c) Coke's business model has as much to do with its distribution system --- the fact that they can get a Coke into the hands of virtually any person on the planet in minutes --- as it does with its brand.
(d) Copyrights and trademarks mean that motion pictures need to acquire the rights to feature many (in a Spielberg film, perhaps all) of the brands shown on screen, which creates a venue in which major brands like Coke are consulted as a matter of course simply because either they or their competitors need to be shown simply to create verisimilitude.
My biggest argument against media consolidation, though, is that I simply don't trust any one entity with significant centralized power. While Disney+Lucasfilm is probably a pretty good fit for business and entertainment reasons, the sheer size of the various conglomerates is astounding.
And don't think for a minute that there isn't blatant propaganda in some TV shows, even if the propaganda isn't coherent within a single media conglomerate. The example I found most bothersome was the justly canceled TV series "V", which had extremely overt xenophobic allusions to issues of the day, like illegal immigration and foreign policy.
My kids get their "bearings" from their Judeo/Christian upbringing, both at home and at school. That is their "culture", not the characters they see in Disney movies. Looking over the list of recent Disney movies, the themes I pick out are "individuality, loyalty, determination, perseverance." All of which are reflective of our culture, and all of which fly completely over the heads of small kids.
I use a lot of non-Google owned web sites and services. Can you support this assertion?
But people in general? I strongly doubt it. Hang out with some "non-technical people" (they will often helpfully describe themselves this way for you) while they use the computer sometime. If they didn't have Google, they might be able to get to Facebook, but that would be pretty much the boundary of the Internet for them.
I'm not sure why people here are acting as if Bing, Yahoo etc. don't exist and don't offer a decent service that would be adequate for the internet to continue functioning without Google.
Real World Example: Some relative of my girlfriend set up her mom's computer to use Yahoo. But she has since been convinced that Google is better and she should use that. So what does she do? Every time she starts up her web browser, she types "google" into the Yahoo search box, clicks the link to go to the Google homepage, then does her search there.
Yeah, if any major service that millions of people used every day disappeared, there would be a period of adjustment. But that's all... a period of adjustment.
It's like Bear Grylls or some other "survivalist" who knows how to pick berries in the woods and make a shelter laughing at the idea that a breakdown in modern argiculture would have an effect on the world.
There are people, a LOT of people, who literally think Google IS the internet. If they can't get to Google in a web browser, they think the internet is broken; "I can't get to my internet!" And they know of no other portal thereto.
Just ask some folks over age 55 or so. You'll find this user mindset is very common.
Disneys dialog is present, right beneath our noses.
Best link to relevant episode: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armor_Wars#section_5
(i) Millions of kids saw that episode and went on to pirate movies and music anyways, because kids don't really derive their ethics from cartoon series, just like you & I aren't secretly animated by "Knowing is Half The Battle" from G.I. Joe. (http://www.joeheadquarters.com/joeendings.shtml)
(ii) The particular message you're suggesting Iron Man is "propagandizing" is so anodyne that it was the subject of a whole episode of Arthur on PBS.
The point of such propaganda would not be to ensure that people don't pirate, but to plant the idea that doing so is morally bad, so that lobbying efforts in favor of IP protection laws seem morally legitimate.
When I was a little kid, Saved by the Bell was a really funny show. I loved watching it. I read books that had the same characters as well. In one of the books, one of the girls was saying she couldn't date a certain guy. Her friend asked her why not. She said it was because they were already friends, so it would be too strange to date.
For years after that, I thought it was a stupid idea to date friends. I thought I should only try to date strangers or acquaintances, which was hard because I was timid about that kind of stuff. My parents didn't even get involved because they didn't think it was important, and that I'd figure it out. So my dating record during high school was zero, and even during university, it wasn't going anywhere until very late in the game. During this time, I passed up on the opportunity to date many wonderful girls who were high in character, very attractive, etc, just because we were already friends. No, I had to find someone to date who was not yet a friend, except I couldn't get date-comfortable with girls without becoming friends first. What a stupid infinite loop.
It's a stupid and embarrassing story, but it did indeed happen. And as dumb as it is, I've only in the last few years overcome that completely illogical obstruction in my mind. Parents, talk to your kids about what they watch on TV, play on their PS3, and read in books. Ethics may or may not be impacted, but if behaviour can be impacted, I bet you ethics could be as well.
Is it really that tin foil hat-ish to suggest that Disney has a boat in this race, and might try to exert some influence through their content? Hey, maybe they aren't, but I definitely don't think it's terribly far-fetched to question it.
But you're worried about the influence of the talk of patent has on your kids?
That's funny; another of Mr. Lucas' fine films taught me that you can survive a direct nuclear explosion by hiding in a discarded refrigerator.
In a similar vein, there's nothing wrong with funny characters necessarily, but there is something wrong with Jar Jar.
I learned the exact opposite from Indiana Jones!
For a while, it seemed like "nuking the fridge" was going to replace "jumping the shark" as a metaphor for creative failure.
I don't think lightly of these things, as in fact- reading is a way of brainwashing too.
Small kids in front of television or in the movie theater, watching a movie. Thinking inside their young brains, what is happening on the screen. Seeing social interactions of Role Models that are not real, and then thinking "So this is how adults behave".
Thinking about how they would re-act in the same situation, then seeing that this "Cool Guy In The Movie Did That" and thinking that "Maybe I should try to do the same thing".
Even the most little things in cartoons and movies can trigger this kind of thinking and re-thinking in us, making us believe that "I should be like that, if I want to be cool" or some other situation.
We might want to deny this control over our lives, as we all want to be masters of our selves. But this shit gets into our subconsciousness and affects the way we act in real life. We might even not recognize it, as it has been part of our programming from the very beginning of our lives, watching these cartoons and believing shit like "A princess should marry a prince on a white horse".
Movies and cartoons have very much influence over behavioral patterns in our life.
This Lucasarts & Disney merge is worrying. Add in another great programmer of children, McDonalds, and we have (already) a culture of children who have been raised on cartoon & movie values, fed by McDonalds and educated by a broken education system and adults who don't know better.
Disney & McDonalds working together to program and feed our children. A Reality which I wouldn't want to see happen, but is already happening. What can we do ?
Ignore them. Create counter-culture. Educate our children ourselves. Free us from this kind of mass programming.
Remember, Britney Spears is also part of the Disney empire. Want your kid to look up to this kind of idols, who promote Sugary Cola Drink, Fast Food and Over Sexuality ?
EDIT: News Corp was what I was thinking.
EDIT: Despite Fox News, the Fox network broadcasts left-leaning shows like The Simpsons, Family Guy, and American Dad, which regularly mock Fox News. 20th Century Fox distributes a lot of films without any discernable agenda[1], even backing films like Avatar, or the Wall Street sequel. I'm convinced that News Corporation is entirely mercenary in its agenda and only started Fox News because right-wing cable news was a wide open opportunity in the late 1990's.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_20th_Century_Fox_films
News Corp is a better example.
Koch isn't a media company.
Try again.
Except for the fact that Fox News is (unfortunately) taken seriously by millions of Americans and therefore has much more power over political discourse, whereas shows like Simpsons and Family guy are satire.
>>Koch isn't a media company.
It literally doesn't matter. If you think a corporation has to have media outlets in order to affect cultural and political discourse, you are either living under a rock or just hopelessly naive.
It owns News Limited, News International which are dominate right-wing newspapers/websites in Australia and UK respectively. Foxtel and BSkyB which are the PayTV equivalent in Australia and UK. Wall Street Journal and Fox News which is influential in the US. It has also its hands in tonnes of other media assets:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_Corporation
Fox Studios is nothing but a tiny sideshow.
And it's hard to call News Corp's entertainment properties a "tiny sideshow" when 20th Century Fox distributes a fair chunk of Hollywood's output, when three out of the four most popular sports leagues in the world are broadcast by either Fox or Sky Sports, and when Fox is easily one of the more successful TV networks in the United States.
I suppose you could say I am stretching the meaning of "agenda". Non-deliberate messages, which most of the "pro establishment" stuff probably is, probably doesn't really qualify as agenda now that I think about it.
It matters in the sense that a media conglomerate can't consistently act in concert to effect cultural change, which was the original question. But I think you're being insufficiently cynical if you don't think the news properties are there to put money in the pot, too.
Before Fox News was launched, the overwhelming sentiment among conservative Americans (who, let's not forget, make up about half the country) was that other news sources had a liberal bias. It was an obvious opportunity to exploit.
In the UK/Australia, News Limited has been heavily involved through its newspapers in dictating government policy. For example the "boat people" issue was very much promoted in Australia and in the UK there are countless examples of governments capitulating on policy at the behest of the News International papers.
This might be more plausible if their News wing didn't represent the interests of its Founder.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_20th_Century_Fox_films
The alternative is likely to get them sued. This is not surprising.
I was surprised at seeing Lucasfilm licensing these valuable properties to Disney for use in a theme park. I guess the two companies have been working together for years.
I think that this deal, like the Pixar one, brings in something that Disney hasn't been able to create on it's own for a long time - enduring and loved characters. It's all very well trying to get a 5 year old to be 'into' Mickey Mouse, but they are far more interested in Buzz Lightyear or Nemo or Lightning McQueen.
Disney itself hasn't been very good at 'coining' characters for a while, and there is no doubt the real cream is in the merchandising. A successful movie, therefore, is not just about getting box office, but also in spawning characters that can become cashcows.
Interesting history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Tours
That said, Disney has seen a pretty steady increase in revenue (~5-6%) over the past few years.
Sony is not a distribution platform, ok. Apple is, ok. ESPN is mission critical for all cable platforms, ok. Dis by proxy, ok.
None of these statements are false but none of them lead me to think Apple wants to own any of these content businesses.
If Apple was going to buy any content company it's pretty obvious that they would have bought Pixar. Instead Steve sold Pixar to Disney. Now you're telling us that Disney's owning of these properties like Pixar is terrible for Apple but it doesn't fit the observed data.
You're too focused on Apple, and not focused on the companies defending their positions against Apple. The big threats to Hollywood are: (1) Hulu; (2) Netflix; (3) Apple.
Valuation: (1) $1-2B (2) $10B (3) $6-700B > Notice the orders of magnitude.
Strategy: (1) Hulu - kill by benign neglect (this is done) (2) Netflix - starve of tier 1 content (this is done) (3) Apple - keep them out of the game (this is in process)
Right now, Apple themselves are more focused on SV (google, fb). But Apple has the ability to do things (1) and (2) cannot do, <should they want to> due to size ($100B cash?).
Thus, strategies to kill (1) and (2) don't work (against apple). The best way to 'win' is to never let them into the game.
Hollywood/RIAA will use a combination of vertical-integration, regional oligopoly, and legislation to protect their cash-cow businesses, just common sense.
Hollywood doesn't want to kill Hulu (which it owns) or Netflix any more than it wants to kill Wal-Mart or theater chains. The current threats to Hollywood profits are The Pirate Bay and YouTube and to a lesser extent RedBox. Netflix was briefly in a very favorable contract regime but that didn't last very long at all.
"The best way to 'win' is to never let them into the game."
This entire argument rests on the idea that Apple wants to "be in the game" -- i.e. become a big content company -- but that's what I'm contesting. And the whole thing falls apart because if it's bad for Apple that Disney acquires more content then why did Jobs sell Pixar to Disney?
As for the rest, I think you mis-understand the logic.
The Hollywood's strategy doesn't hinge on Apple's beliefs. In the same way that the strategy in Chess of Black may be pursued absent White understanding it.
The greatest battles won, are those never fought
(to paraphrase Sun Tzu)
It used to be said tha Steve Jobs knew what a consumer wanted before he ever imagined it. It did not matter to Jobs if the consumer was unawares of the virtues of his future products. He built them anyway.
Similarly, when trying purchase financial assets, it is best to do your buying when the rest of the market does not understand your strategy. That keeps the price down, competition at bay, and the liquidity high.
Common sense says: this why hedge funds are secretive.
__________
[1] Don't think for a moment that this is not fully understood, by the owners.
For a company the size of Apple, to get into content production it would be less expensive and quicker for them to acquire than to build it in house.
And for any good partnership, there needs to be a Win-win on both sides. If Apple were to sabotage it's content agnosticism, would probably hurt it's mobile market share.