Search Results
6/12/2025, 9:25:24 AM
>>211349486
All of the live action remakes are wins from Disney's perspective, because the main reason producing them is not to actually make money, although that is a nice bonus if they do.
Its to retain copyright and a trademark on the original cartoon. That includes things like the character designs and songs.
Disney make more money on merch and use of characters than the movies by miles. In order to keep doing this after a certain period of time, either based on when a work becomes public domain or when a contract states rights on certain things revert to someone else if a new film has not been made (sunset clauses), they have to make a new film. All those shite sequels in the 90s were not just cash grabs but suring up ownership rights too, all those times when Disney sued children's hospitals for having paintings of Disney characters on their window were too. Part of trademark law is that you have to be seen using and protecting your intellectual property in order to be able to claim it as your trademark.
That's how Bass have managed to protect a simple red triangle as one of the oldest copyrights in the world. A fucking triangle. And why McDonald's sue if anyone else with the common surname McDonald dares to name any food adjacent company after themself. Nintendo also have a reputation for having lawyers on speed-dial ever since they almost got had up for a similar thing using the name Kong.
So why not just release a new animated remake, or another low quality sequel? Its because Disney got rid of its hand drawn animators, all they do now is CGI, this means in nearly all cases it would cost more to make a good quality animated film than just a live action film that is "good enough".
If you look where the budgets of the live action films are highest, this matches up with the ones they sell the most t-shirts of in places like Primark, so you see what is happening there...
All of the live action remakes are wins from Disney's perspective, because the main reason producing them is not to actually make money, although that is a nice bonus if they do.
Its to retain copyright and a trademark on the original cartoon. That includes things like the character designs and songs.
Disney make more money on merch and use of characters than the movies by miles. In order to keep doing this after a certain period of time, either based on when a work becomes public domain or when a contract states rights on certain things revert to someone else if a new film has not been made (sunset clauses), they have to make a new film. All those shite sequels in the 90s were not just cash grabs but suring up ownership rights too, all those times when Disney sued children's hospitals for having paintings of Disney characters on their window were too. Part of trademark law is that you have to be seen using and protecting your intellectual property in order to be able to claim it as your trademark.
That's how Bass have managed to protect a simple red triangle as one of the oldest copyrights in the world. A fucking triangle. And why McDonald's sue if anyone else with the common surname McDonald dares to name any food adjacent company after themself. Nintendo also have a reputation for having lawyers on speed-dial ever since they almost got had up for a similar thing using the name Kong.
So why not just release a new animated remake, or another low quality sequel? Its because Disney got rid of its hand drawn animators, all they do now is CGI, this means in nearly all cases it would cost more to make a good quality animated film than just a live action film that is "good enough".
If you look where the budgets of the live action films are highest, this matches up with the ones they sell the most t-shirts of in places like Primark, so you see what is happening there...
Page 1