Disney buys large parts of Fox - Marvel get back X-Men/F4!!

[Lord Joeltion]

He was abducted in 1988. The rest of the film happens "26 years later", i.e. 2014. It's anyone's guess as to how old he was meant to be in those scenes (Dawson casting being what it is), but if he was meant to be, say, 6, he'd be in his 30s, which fits the character.

Yes, the tunes are from the 70s, but that's because those are his mom's tunes.

GW

Thank you, that was more like what I remembered. I still think him aging slower than regular humans isn't far-fetched, given than he is (or wasn't?) no regular human.

*AHEM*

Do I need to go fetch my rocket launchers...?

Okay, I admit she has a "big" fanbase (compared to Hawkeye at least), but out of the "old school" characters, she has a considerable hatedom among old fans too*. So it evens out in the end. Not like Ice-man, whose movie appearance back in the 2000's both sparked his brief popularity and killed any chance for him of becoming a fan-favorite. Because, who would admit being a fan of somebody called "Bobby"? And dates Anna Paquin, out of the whole cast... yuck

*

X-Men:
The animated series from The '90s had Jubilee, who seemed to exist solely to give it a "teen" viewpoint.

Btw, I always had the impression she became more popular AFTER the series ended. And less annoying. Until she was trapped in Marvel Twilight Ripoff which annihilated any popularity she had

[Reddish Mage]

What you forget with Cap is that he was a hippie liberal back in the 40s. I mean, look at his life:

Raised poor by a single mother

Chronic health problems

Anti-establishment vibe (hates bullies, no matter who they are)

Dr Erskine dispels notions about how All Germans are Nazis

Peggy Carter, Derek Luke, Jim Morita and the rest of the Howling Commandos show him about 'others'

And finally Howard Stark shows him not all rich white guys are teh ebil

Basically, by the time he gets frozen he's had most of his prejudices challenged and defeated

I think that’s the point of using Steve Rogers as the example of what “ordinary screwed up people” types in X-men are not like. Steve Rogers somehow manages to have sensibly acquired a more contemporary sense of morality in the 1940’s and continues to uphold those values in the 21st century. He also brought just the right about of gentlemanly attributes and innocent charm from the 1940s as well.

He’s closer to Superman or a DC hero than most iconomic Marvel characters, and the popular X-men are popular in part because their stories are so personal and tragic and screwed up unlike his.

[Chromascope3D]

Realized today that Firefly was a Fox property, and is thus now owned by Disney. Could there be a slim hope for something new? Or is it just too late to matter at this point?

[Forum Explorer]

Realized today that Firefly was a Fox property, and is thus now owned by Disney. Could there be a slim hope for something new? Or is it just too late to matter at this point?

I'd say too late, but this seems to be the era of nostalgia. Maybe they'll make a reboot or something of it.

[Rogar Demonblud]

The Firefly rights are held by enough people that probably nothing is happening ever again. You'd have to get Tim Minear, Kai Cole (Joss' ex-wife), Universal and Dark Horse on board, plus maybe that video game company. They kind of traded shares in the property about for a while, so there's probably other stakeholders as well.

[Metahuman1]

I could see Disney offering them the cash and then putting them in Disney Infinity or a like game property.



I could even more see them doing that, and then publishing new comics under Marvel, and since they either will have there own in house streaming service or 60% of Hulu, just sitting there and making a post movie animated series just for adults on one of the two streaming services. They have been dipping there toes in Animation with an older audience threshold more recently with things like Star Wars Rebels, Gravity Falls and Star vs. The Forces Of Evil, there's a big fanbase who are vocal, the actors would probably come back if cut a good check to do voices, they have what, 2 or 3 hugh animation departments in house as well?

[Kitten Champion]

I could see Disney offering them the cash and then putting them in Disney Infinity or a like game property.

Disney's out of the video game business, at least as a publisher. They seem fine with certain publishers licensing their IPs like EA. Telltale, or Square Enix, but we're not going to see anymore Disney Infinity or... I don't know, Epic Mickey III I guess. Those jobs have been lost and money divested elsewhere.

[Metahuman1]

Huh, pity, I'd heard a lot of good things about Disney Infinity.



Still, they have that 60% of Hulu, they were at one point expressing interest in a streaming service, and they have, what, 2 or 3 major animation studios with massive budgets?

Getting the cast back for voices and doing an adult animation for streaming only still sounds potentially viable.

[Lord Joeltion]

Huh, pity, I'd heard a lot of good things about Disney Infinity.

That's what you get from competing with Nintendo on THEIR terms instead of your own. To be fair, Disney was just asking for a FAILURE

[Metahuman1]

Boy that post is going to be hilarious in a few years if Disney buys Nintendo and then does Disney Infinity 2 on the Nintendo platforms.

[Kitten Champion]

Infinity was competing with Skylanders more than anything, which is Activision's I believe. According to Disney's reports Infinity was pretty profitable, but apparently the game-with-toy-tie-in genre - or, whatever you want to call it - that Skylanders started and others like Disney were emulating weren't selling as well relative to past entries. Disney concluded quickly that the fad was over and... well, shut everything down rather than invest another raw penny into it.

I don't see them getting into the games market again unless their management changes.

[Lord Joeltion]

Infinity was competing with Skylanders more than anything, which is Activision's I believe. According to Disney's reports Infinity was pretty profitable, but apparently the game-with-toy-tie-in genre - or, whatever you want to call it - that Skylanders started and others like Disney were emulating weren't selling as well relative to past entries. Disney concluded quickly that the fad was over and... well, shut everything down rather than invest another raw penny into it.

I don't see them getting into the games market again unless their management changes.

Uh? I'm not sure about the game itself, but the Infinity "project" was shot down mid-flight because of the toys, nothing to do with the game itself. Which was a clear attempt to compete with Amiibo's brand (even if Amiibo is a diferent concept, they both fall under the ToSellToys trope). The tl;dr version is that Disney was producing way more toys than people were actually eager to buy. Which didn't surprise me in the least, because a lot of people I know that bought the pieces, barely ever played the game. On the other hand, Amiibo is successful because it isn't dependant to a single game and because Japan

But correct me if I'm wrong, please.

[Kitten Champion]

Uh? I'm not sure about the game itself, but the Infinity "project" was shot down mid-flight because of the toys, nothing to do with the game itself. Which was a clear attempt to compete with Amiibo's brand (even if Amiibo is a diferent concept, they both fall under the ToSellToys trope). The tl;dr version is that Disney was producing way more toys than people were actually eager to buy. Which didn't surprise me in the least, because a lot of people I know that bought the pieces, barely ever played the game. On the other hand, Amiibo is successful because it isn't dependant to a single game and because Japan

But correct me if I'm wrong, please.

Well, first, Amiibo came out a year after Infinity first released. Secondly, according to Disney's financial reports, Infinity 2.0 (which made gameplay improvements and introduced Marvel I believe) made over 200 million dollars and had profits equivalent to what Activision was doing, and couldn't be described objectively as a failure.

Thirdly, they've directly stated their reasons (as I restated above) and never mentioned Nintendo in it.

[Lord Joeltion]

Well, first, Amiibo came out a year after Infinity first released. Secondly, according to Disney's financial reports, Infinity 2.0 (which made gameplay improvements and introduced Marvel I believe) made over 200 million dollars and had profits equivalent to what Activision was doing, and couldn't be described objectively as a failure.

Thirdly, they've directly stated their reasons (as I restated above) and never mentioned Nintendo in it.

Huh, I simply assumed Amiibo's concept to be older because physical collectibles related to gaming was always kind of a Japanese trend. No, what I meant with Nintendo is that the figurines worked pretty well for them. Because Japan. But I stand corrected then.

The part I highlighted is because, whatever the case, I disagree. It can be described as a failure, if the whole purpose of Infinity was ToSellToys (figurines, in this case). And going by your description, it kinda was just that.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

The part I highlighted is because, whatever the case, I disagree. It can be described as a failure, if the whole purpose of Infinity was ToSellToys (figurines, in this case). And going by your description, it kinda was just that.

You seem to be confusing the mission with the objective. In very simplified terms, the mission is how you intend to make money, and the objective is how much money you intend to make (or some other measure that correlates to money or growth, such as "increase the number of clients by 25%"). The objective cannot be "To Sell Toys" because that is an open-ended unquantified statement. It would be technically accomplished after selling two toys, and therefore would not serve as an objective, just as a mission.

Now, the reality is more complicated than that (technically, my current department's objective is to save money, not make it, by selling our services to other departments cheaper than they'd normally pay for those same services in an open market). And mission statements are considerably more complicated than "sell toys" (usually involving meaningless words like "synergistically"). But still, without knowing what the actual objective was, "making $200 million selling toys" could easily have accomplished it, if they weren't ridiculously optimistic about their chances.

Grey Wolf

[Lord Joeltion]

You seem to be confusing the mission with the objective.

Actually, no. Or yes (maybe?), but that wasn't what I was referring to exactly. I get what you say, and in business the actual reasons really can't be that simple; I grant you that. But "To Sell Toys" is the same trope* that is called "Merchandise-Driven"** in the tvtropes page. The idea is about any transmedia-like product that is in reality (or mostly) driven by a single merchandise of the bunch. In the case of Infinity, that would be the figurines. The figurines were the ones "driving" the game (as in, "deciding it's fate"), and even when it was a gaming success; the product was cancelled once the figurines became nonviable/unprofitable/whatever. I was just pointing out that for all its success, the game can still be "objectively" described as a failure if its entire point wasn't to be a commercial success but to boost the sell/profit of a secondary market. tl;dr: I was nitpicking, not arguing

*From the Transformers Fan page, where is when I first found it with that name.
**This trope includes more aspects of a product broader than simply boosting a product's profit; but its essentially the same thing.

[Metahuman1]

The though crosses my mind that 1: They could do like digital downloads for small amounts of money (and have a way to spend like, 10-15 hours unlocking them with in game currency.), say, $0.25 a character? Something parents can make the kids go earn or get in there allowance to help teaching them to budget?

Or they could just flat have all the characters unlock able with play time if they just want you to buy and play the damn game and avoid the EA trap.