Disney VS Warner?

[Ursalink]

This is just a comment, but for the last years, I have heard everywhere people complaining about "How Disney is buying everything": like Marvel Comics, Star Wars, Pixar, the Muppets and now the Fox. However, it seems people are forgetting that Disney's main rival (Warner Bros) has been doing the same for years too. I mean, doesn't Warner Bros owe stuff like DC comics (quite ironic, since Disney has its main rival, Marvel), Hannah Barbera and the old Cartoon Network's channel? Also, where Disney has Star Wars, Warner has Star Trek.

[stargazer01]

I don't think WB own Star Trek, that's Paramount pretty sure.

Also, Disney is very good at family films, but they have trouble with original films. Basically all they do is remakes and sequels..

Warner Bros are not perfect either, but they at least take more risks and do more original and compelling films. More variety in general. We are lucky they are still around.

[Divine Spark]

Disney is the Thanos of the entertainment business.

[Immortal Weapon]

Warner got brought by AT&T last year. They were one of the companies that got brought lol.

[Osiris-Rex]

Warner got brought by AT&T last year. They were one of the companies that got brought lol.

At one time AOL owned Warner Bros. Anyone even remember AOL anymore?

[Wandering_Wand]

I think it comes from Disney's much larger profile when purely compared to WB. People have more awareness of Disney for a myriad of reasons.
Their footprint overall is much, much larger than WB's. To compare, WB was bought by AT&T, who wanted to start getting into the content realm. They received quite a bit of pushback from the approval agencies whereas Disney has not as they continue to buy other content providers up (and that's the key difference with AT&T being a network/telecom operator as well as content now, Disney is all straight content). Disney's share of the content provider market is outrageous now.

Disney bought Lucasfilms, Marvel, Pixar, Fox, Hulu, and owns multiple TV channels as well (all ABC channels, ESPN, Disney, etc.). Am I missing anything?

Specifically to some points made in the OP, Cartoon Network is the only channel that I am personally aware of that is directly owned and influenced by WB in any way (open to hearing what other channels they own, I simply don't know). That can't compare to the plethora of TV channels Disney oversees. I also wasn't aware that Warner Bros. owned the Star Trek IP and there appears to be some refute on that above.

[useridgoeshere]

I feel like Warner Bros would be more of a movie threat if their franchises like DC, LEGO and Harry Potter had panned out to be a reliable bench for blockbusters. It doesn't really feel like there's a lot of depth there with successes like Aquaman and Wonder Woman feeling more like outliers.

On TV, Warner is obviously a powerhouse and that'll help them in streaming, too.

[Jokerz79]

I don't think WB own Star Trek, that's Paramount pretty sure.

Also, Disney is very good at family films, but they have trouble with original films. Basically all they do is remakes and sequels..

Warner Bros are not perfect either, but they at least take more risks and do more original and compelling films. More variety in general. We are lucky they are still around.

Paramount use to own Trek then Paramount was bought by Viacom who also owned CBS. Viacom's parent company National Amusement owned by Sumner Redstone split Viacom into two companies in the mid 00's current Viacom owns Paramount but Trek was given to the separate CBS Corporation both companies are still owned by National Amusement. CBS leased Trek out to Paramount to do the Kelvin films and Redstone's daughter will likely remerge the companies in the next few years she hated the split but is now in charged and just waiting because Moonves was fighting her on it and his departure while guarentee she'll get what she wants also delayed it.

[AJBopp]

Not that it matters a lot, but Disney is only the third largest studio and behind WB.

https://www.therichest.com/rich-list...ywood-studios/

[useridgoeshere]

Not that it matters a lot, but Disney is only the third largest studio and behind WB.

https://www.therichest.com/rich-list...ywood-studios/

That link is from 2013.

[Vakanai]

Meh, I like content from both companies, and competition between them on the entertainment front means more stuff for us fans. Don't particularly agree with the business practices of either, but that's out of my hands.

[Midvillian1322]

I don't think WB own Star Trek, that's Paramount pretty sure.

Also, Disney is very good at family films, but they have trouble with original films. Basically all they do is remakes and sequels..

Warner Bros are not perfect either, but they at least take more risks and do more original and compelling films. More variety in general. We are lucky they are still around.

Touchstone still exists right? Just realized Disney hasnt realzied awhole lot of movies through them lately that I can recall. I know Miramax isnt with Disney anymore but just havent heard much from Toucstone

[Powerboy]

This is just a comment, but for the last years, I have heard everywhere people complaining about "How Disney is buying everything": like Marvel Comics, Star Wars, Pixar, the Muppets and now the Fox. However, it seems people are forgetting that Disney's main rival (Warner Bros) has been doing the same for years too. I mean, doesn't Warner Bros owe stuff like DC comics (quite ironic, since Disney has its main rival, Marvel), Hannah Barbera and the old Cartoon Network's channel? Also, where Disney has Star Wars, Warner has Star Trek.

Star Trek is Paramount not Warner. While I am not on this anti-Disney bandwagon, owning Hanna-Barbara and the cartoon network is not comparable to owning Star Wars and Fox. I can't really criticize Disney for Marvel though because they were the ones that built movie Marvel into this billion dollar franchise. Warner had the advantage of far more big name characters before they even started and have been promoting a few of them for decades.

[AngelJD]

One thing I feel we should look at is the differences in business styles and choices that happened during the Early Eisner, Late Eisner, and now Iger periods and see how they went about things. Alot of the major buying seems to be happening as of recent within the Iger period.

During the early Eisner period first Disney had to battle back from being brought out and divided. Roy Disney had Eisner come in to save his family's company from being separated and sold out to buyers. In the early Eisner period there were big players happening but things started to go from great to a downhill after Frank Wells died, Disney's America fallout, Euro Disney(now Disneyland Paris) all causing financial and company/personal civil war headaches, and then full computer 3d animation (which Disney relied heavily on Pixar at first and only later entered that difficult field with a very rough start but had grown themselves) started to overshadow all 2D animated big screen movies.

That started the 2nd phase shift within the Eisner period (early period Eisney it felt was hopeful and took risks but later after Frank's death the tone shift and pulling back of resources happened). During the Eisner period they brought or tried to make partnership deals. For the parks Eisner made deals to have attractions that was non-Disney while not buying out (there was a Muppet deal happening with major plans for a Muppet land at the Studios park plus the Mupputs taking over Disneyland for a full year with Mickey and his friends gone on vacation during the early Eisner period but fell when Jim Henson died). Did you know the 'Alien' series and character was going to have a attraction at Tomorrowland? That however fell and instead they made "Alien Encounter the Extra'terror'strial". During the Eisner run he did expand greatly the company by buying ABC network which was a huge deal (plus Eisner I think came from the TV networks side of things before he entered Disney so he had knowledge of the power a TV network has which influenced this choice) but it feels like they were more focus on making partnership or other deals then buying and expanding within added the Studio's park, Animal Kingdom, the Cruise Line, and other expansions within the company.

When Iger came in he didn't want to be the next 'Walt Disney' like it felt early Eisner wanted (which caused backstage problems) and ran things behind the scenes and made changes. Iger is a person that seems more pure business focused and he let's creative heads handle the creative side mostly as he focuses how to strengthen from a business side. He does want to expand the Disney sandbox with long-term IPs of Disney and during this calculates and buys properties that the risk factors are favourable or help offer content and technology that can help the company. I think however the Fox buy was not just for more diverse IPs but to prepare for the next/present wave of media (cable falling to streaming services) gaining a good portion of Hulu and plus prepare for Disney's own Disney+ service. The one to be buying and just focusing on what Disney has not expanding the parks but changing them within. Iger announced he will retirement in 2021 which is also something different from past CEOs of Disney. To me past Disney CEO's made it personal and took things personally which was a positive and a negative. Bob remained distant much more and doing so that had it's own series of positives and negatives but helped the Disney Company.

April 2019: “I’m expecting my contract to expire at the end of 2021,” said Iger Thursday. “And I was going to say ‘and this time I mean it,’ but I’ve said it before. I’ve been CEO since October of 2005 and as I’ve said many times, there’s a time for everything and 2021 will be the time for me to finally step down.” “There’s discussion about a succession and they’ve been engaged in a succession process. And we continue to feel that they will be able to identify my successor on a timely enough basis so this company has smooth transition.”