Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

answeryboi t1_j7kcfp1 wrote

Why would it? This is a measure of how successful the studios are at making high earning films, not business acumen. Marvel studios is still a separate entity from Disney studios.

8

frostmatthew t1_j7kjk3r wrote

Then why does OP consider Star Wars under Disney instead of LucasFilm? Within Disney LucasFilm is as distinct as Marvel Studios so it doesn't make sense to separate one in the chart but not both.

43

answeryboi t1_j7kkq9g wrote

After clicking through to see more data, the star wars films and some marvel films are listed under Disney motion pictures. I retract all defenses, this is terrible data.

40

answeryboi t1_j7kjsee wrote

They're not actually combined. The source data lists them separately, OP just put a picture of star wars for Disney.

5

PixelPervert t1_j7ke6ne wrote

Disney still must profit off of owning them. There's no reason to have bought them otherwise.

2

answeryboi t1_j7kf59t wrote

That's not what I meant. What I mean is that this data should be separated out by studio as it is because, in a sense, it's a measurement of the studio's performance.

10

unimportantthing t1_j7kitwa wrote

Even if that’s what’s happening, OP’s graph is still disingenuous then. I mean, the representative picture for Disney is a Lucasfilm movie, a separate studio owned by Disney. It also appears that the Disney bar includes Pixar profits, which is also a separate studio owned by Disney.

So why include some under the parent but not others? What is the criteria? It’s a poor choice of data display.

10

answeryboi t1_j7kjq2h wrote

While the picture shows Star Wars, the source data lists Lucasfilms separately from Disney. I think it's just a poor choice in pictures.

4

answeryboi t1_j7kkqsj wrote

After clicking through to see more data, the star wars films and some marvel films are listed under Disney motion pictures. I retract all defenses, this is terrible data.

1