While I
always intended to tackle this topic, I had thought it would be a bit further
in the future. That said, with (now current) issues between Disney
and Sony regarding the character of Spiderman, it felt like a good
time go ahead and address the elephant mouse in the room. No other
entertainment company even comes close to rivaling the size and scale of
Disney’s operation and that disparity is only growing. While it might be easy
to just write this off as temporary good luck in the ever-changing seas of a
volatile industry, I think it is something more – something much darker and
considerably less temporary. Let’s talk about it.
The House of Mouse
So, I don’t want to spend a lot of time on the history of the company – partly because it is so vast and partly because it is easy enough to research on your own should you be so inclined – but I will try and hit the high points. In essence, Disney was a family-oriented multimedia company founded by Walt Disney. It was one of the pioneers of full-length animated movies and created a wide stable of associated characters that have stood the test of time. During this time Disney also perfected the art of vertical integration by profiting greatly from merchandise and theme parks related to its media. While the company has had its highs and lows, Disney has always been able to weather the proverbial storm and come out more powerful than it started. So far, no problem.
As mentioned, Disney has a stable of business dealings that stretch across a variety of platforms – movies, television, theme parks, merchandising, licensing and on and on and on. All of these separate entities feed each other via cross promotion of the highest order. Disney movies are marketed on Disney TV channels and at Disney parks with no need for costly revenue expenditures. Given the vast size of their modern empire, this allows them a distinct advantage over their fellow competitors – millions of eyeballs exposed to their content for next to no additional cost. This business savvy has allowed them an excess of free cash with which to do the one thing they are truly excellent at – expand.
The Keys to the Kingdom
Corporate expansion is nothing new. Companies merge or overtake others every day – that’s just capitalism. Where Disney differs from these other companies is both the rate and breadth of expansion that it has experienced over the past three decades. Where most such studios may make one big merger every decade or so (if they’re lucky), Disney has made many, many more. From Pixar to Marvel, Star Wars to Fox, Disney has made it a point to aggressively increase its size by integrating all manner of competing IPs and studios. The fact that one studio controls the right to both The Simpsons, Toy Story, Alien, Thor, Darth Vader and Donald Duck is humbling – media empires were built on less. And let’s be clear – those are just a random sampling, a drop in the bucket, of what they have access to.
Of course, the important point here is not merely the vast quantities of characters and worlds they own (a creative studio deserves the financial rewards of their hard work), it is that so much of their modern day dominance has come from properties that they had no (or little) hand in creating. Much like the slugs from Slither, Disney just consumes everything in its path and converts it into a mere extension of itself. While this success by assimilation has proven to be a powerful (and financially successful) path, it has also led to what many now realize is a dearth of original ideas and an over-reliance on nostalgia.
Re-make/boot/vitalize/package
While remake and reboot culture is nothing new, Disney has a unique history with this type of media. Going back as far as their animated classics, many of them were all based on pre-existing stories and fairy tales (to the point that even public domain characters, such as Cinderella, are now viewed almost exclusively as Disney property). While there is nothing wrong with film adaptations of media from other mediums, their reliance on this sort of content goes back almost as far as the company itself. No wonder then that, in the modern era, we find Disney attempting to capitalize on the nostalgia of their previous works by recreating them in what are sometimes near shot-for-shot remakes.
While there can sometimes be benefit in using advancements in technology to add layers of depth to existing stories, that is not what Disney is doing here. In fact, despite the impressive box office performance of these films, next to no one who sees them believes that they are superior to the originals. So, if these movies are intrinsically less well received and are unwarranted on a creative level, what other reason for their existence than pure profiteering? While I understand that Disney is a business, and thus the point of their existence is to make money, one would hope that an institution as broad and influential as themselves would aim to take a creative lead in their industry. Instead, we are treated to what seems to be a never-ending deluge of repackaged ideas and content that dominates the cinema from January to December.
Copy, right?
Of course, while it might not be the most creatively rewarding strategy, making a continuous stream of remake and reboots is not morally wrong – just lazy. However, Disney’s power over and influence of United States Copyright law is a different beast altogether. Their manipulation of this system has led to more net-bad than perhaps any other single facet of their business and is a prime reason for their continued success.
You see, as initially envisioned, copyright law was created to help protect the financial interests of artists whose creations fell into to the intangible category – characters, specific stories, formulations, etc. Basically, if you came up with it and it was protectable, the government felt that you have the sole right to profit from it for a certain period of time. This makes sense – why should other people or organizations be allowed to line their pockets with the hard work of others? That said, this system of protection was never meant to be permanent. Everyone agreed that, after a given period of time, any specific and protectable idea should eventually fall into the public domain (a fancy way of saying that the idea is no longer the property of any one individual or organization and is now free for use and adapt by anyone). The reason for this is simple: art, and really culture as a whole, is predicated on the notion of standing on the shoulders of giants. Tweaking, subtracting, and adding to characters and stories that have become an intrinsic part of our lives is how new creative works, and really new ideas, are created.
Since the term of copyright lasted for a good chunk of the human lifespan, and thus the author in question was able to profit for most of their life, there was little reason for most to complain. Sure, there were the occasional updates (as there always are where legislation is concerned), but the system functioned relatively as expected – artists profited off of their creations until they eventually became property of the world. This all continued until the day that Disney realize that Mickey Mouse’s original appearance, a cartoon by the name of Steamboat Willie, was soon going to fall into the public domain. Not wanting to lose the exclusivity of the mascot, they lobbied (successfully) on multiple occasions to continually increase the term of copyright. The most recent, the 1998 Act, extended these terms to life of the author plus 70 years and for works of corporate authorship to 120 years after creation or 95 years after publication, whichever end is earlier.
To say this is a contortion of the law’s initial intention is an understatement – in fact, this change was so substantial that it led to a period wherein almost nothing managed to enter the public domain for over 20 years. It is important to remember here that we are not just talking about Disney properties – ALL copyrightable works were included in this provision. That means that, for an entire generation, the public domain was at a veritable standstill. A stagnation. All so that Disney could continue to profit from a character whose creators are long since dead.
One of these Things is just like the Others
Still, one can make an argument that, regardless of how it might affect the greater cultural landscape, a company has a right to attempt to protect (for as long as possible) its creative property. One particular consequence of a single company controlling such a swath of entertainment assets is that, intentional or otherwise, all of these disparate properties begin adopting similar qualities. Movies, worlds, and characters that all began life as clear and distinct expressions of art start to bend under the weight of Disney’s influence. Look no further than the wildly successful Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) to see the result of this hegemony in action.
A common complaint amongst movie-goers in the modern era is that, while they enjoy going to see the latest superhero flick from Marvel Studios, many of the films have a tendency to blend together. Similar humor, similar plotlines, similar cinematography. While a certain degree of same-ness is certainly expected within an interconnected group of movies, it is not a good sign that it is a rare instance when one film (or franchise) deviates in any way from the norm (the visual style of Guardians of the Galaxy, for example). The fact the public responded so favorably to such a change should give pause to the notion that cookie-cutter films are the best way into audience’s hearts.
Despite not particularly being a fan of Fox’s X-Men franchise, one thing that was indisputable was its willingness to take risks and expand the notion of what films in the franchise could be. From the typical action-jaunt of X2 to the dark comedy of Deadpool, from the dramatic nature of Logan to the campiness of Days of Future Past – that series of films was always game to try new things, both in tone and in execution. While these attempts were not always successful, creatively or financially, they were revealing of a studio that was interested in pushing the boundaries of their properties. This was a foundation that was intrinsic not just in that franchise, but those in Alien, Avatar, and Planet of the Apes, just to name a few.
Unfortunately, though it does mean that we can finally see Wolverine meet Dr. Strange, now that Disney owns Fox, we can be all but assured that such risk-taking is done. The X-Men properties (along with the woefully mismanaged Fantastic Four) will be re-booted and brought in line with the rest of the MCU. While undoubtedly successful, this moves will lose the ability to do something truly new by being forced into the existing structure of how a “marvel movie” should be. And, while it is true the Deadpool (both as a character and as an R-rated franchise) may yet survive this culling, it will only do so because of its pre-built popularity and not because it is the direction that Disney would have ever taken the character of their own accord. That fact that some vestigial portion of Fox’s experimentation might continue to exist under Disney’s watchful eye is both a comforting thought and a living reminder of the type of risks that are unlikely to be see again in the MCU. The same can be said of nearly all properties under Disney’s control.
[Note: This is all coming from someone who quite enjoys the films of the MCU and is not merely an example of a person disparaging something they dislike.]
I’m King of the World!
Even given all of the above, I have not yet touched on the most worrying aspect of Disney’s modern-day dominance: their ever-growing control of the box office. You see, it wasn’t that long ago that the corporate competition was stiff enough that, at the end of the year, it was often a close race to see which studio had the best performance. The crown of box office champ was regularly handed off between the top players (Warner Bros, Paramount, Sony, etc.), depending on the particular release slate each had during a given year. And let’s also be clear about what that meant – in most cases, the top-grossing studio usually achieved around 16-19% market share. However, the current “Era of Disney Dominance” in which we now find ourselves is different beast altogether.
As of this writing (2019), Disney – aka. Buena Vista – has held the top spot for the past FOUR YEARS. Not only that, the degree to which they have beaten their competitors has been both higher than any in recent history and ever widening – with their LOWEST year (2017) coming in at a still impressive 21.8% and their highest (2019) reaching a staggering, and nearly unbelievable, 36%. And this is BEFORE the supposed final chapter of the Star Was Saga (expected to be a mammoth hit in and of itself). The fact that a single studio can account for nearly 40% of total revenue of the entire industry would be laughably absurd is wasn’t the dark reality in which we now find ourselves.
Bear in mind, I’m not picking on Disney because I have some sort of grudge against them – I would be against ANY company having such a stranglehold on the box office. Not only does such power allow a studio to make ever-increasing demands of movie theatres (like larger portions of the already small revenue they collect), but it allows them an outsized ability to shape the kinds of stories that make it to the big screen. In any industry, but particularly one built on creativity and unique voices, the more consolidated the gatekeepers, the more ability they have to shape the environment in which they exist. Want to tell a story set in the world of Die Hard, Planet of the Apes, Marvel, Indiana Jones, Alien, Predator, Toy Story, Star Wars, or any other of the countless ones now in the Disney kingdom? You have exactly one way forward. Burn that bridge for any reason and you will find yourself locked out of all of these worlds forever.
Conclusion
It should also be known that my concern goes beyond that for individual creative endeavors – left unchecked, a Disney allowed to continue this reign of dominance might eventually absorb even more studios and properties. This snowball effect could eventually lead to a monopoly so egregious as to render true competition a thing of the past. A world with less competition means one with fewer opportunities, both for industry professionals and audiences. While I don’t begrudge anyone success, there is a distinct difference between the former and a monopoly. Just as other industries before it (telephone, cable, oil, etc.), the entertainment industry may yet find itself in the middle of a government breakup – and that may be a good thing. Such breakups allow for new competitors to enter the market, better products for consumers, and more power for the workers.
Am I advocating such government intervention at the present? Not yet. With the crown jewel of the MCU behind us (the two-part Infinity War and Endgame), the Star Wars Saga coming to a close, the public slowly but surely tiring of live action remakes of animated films, and as-of-yet untested success of Disney+, there is still plenty of time for the natural order to correct itself. Perhaps this time period will be known as a blip of momentary popularity – a coalescence of factors both unique and unprecedented that led to a period of exponential growth which eventually gave way to changing tides.
But perhaps not. And if it is indeed the latter – if one company manages to overwhelm the entire media landscape to the point of suffocation (be it Disney or otherwise) – then I feel that the only acceptable solution is intervention. No company has a right to a particular level of power or influence and no industry can bear the weight of only one player. For creativity to flourish, and for risks to still be taken, we must always ensure as fair and level a playing field as possible. Even if that means that the Incredible Hulk can never meet Luke Skywalker.
Chris