Resolved: Disney buying out LucasFilms is more positive than negative

"He's not a beginner whose refining his craft. These mistakes aren't there because he's just learning, they are there because he's an elderly man out I touch with what people like. As people age they lose creativity. That's what Lucas has done. He's also fallen for the expert trap, where he has become an expert and he's leaning on that (same as previous source). The problem is he's an expert in a film market from over 40 years ago. That same stuff just doesn't work now."You don't have to be a beginner to make mistakes. In fact, the more established a fan base, the more likely you are to experiment with it to safely find what will be considered god and what will be considered bad. This can easily be seen through companies like Nintendo, who experiment and sometimes produce something widely received as brilliant (motion controls/Wii) [1] and sometimes the experimenting leads to a negative (Wii U) [2]. Lucas's experiment of Jar Jar was clearly a negative, and he shall likely experiment some in episode VII, use results to help episode VII, and then use those results to help episode IX."The books don't ruin the movies, because Star Wars fans are filtered from the movies first. Imagine a big filter. In Star Wars the biggest and first filter is the movies. You're comparing a fan base that is filtered from movies to ones that aren't. Harry Potter is filtered from the books. Marvel fans are filtered from the comics. If 6 new Harry Potter books come out that are absolutely crap, the fan base will be severely crippled. The importance of the fan base is that they are lifetime customers and provide a margin of safety on high risk projects. Here is on expert on the purchase of Lucas and particularly Star Wars."I concede your point about the movies being the filter. However, that is irrelevant to my Harry Potter comparison. In my Harry Potter comparison, I stated that the theme park did not water down the Harry Potter park did not water down its respective universe, as you claim the Star Wars park will ruin its."I did give reasons. Earning them short term money is good if it is an effect of building on the fan base and releasing quality projects. The problem is that when the purpose is short term fast profit with reckless disregard to the future of the franchise. This hurts the fans long term profits and quality of work available to the general public. The distance Disney has from the Lucas label allows them to not tarnish their name with short term cash grabs. Disney is in the habit of creating distance between their silly for profit projects and the heart of their business, which is the Disney label."So, this would be good if Disney releases good movies that build on the franchise in a positive way? The main problem with this argument is that it relies on the assumption that Disney's movies will be bad, when my opponent's only argument for why this will happen is Disney made three bad movies for a different franchise."If Disney slips up on Star Wars they will cut and burn just like they did with ICP (last citation) and on numerous other occasions."Yes, so if Disney starts harming the franchise as you claim they will, they will get out, as in, no more harm to the Star Wars universe. So even if we stayed neutral and said Disney has a 50% chance of making good movies (and the percentage should honestly be higher), then Disney either makes content enjoyed by a large group of people and continues to make it, or makes content disrespectful to the franchise and disliked and stop making it. So, to reiterate, Disney's potential positive effect on Star Wars is more positive than their potential negative effect is negative."It doesn't matter how good it is if nobody watches it. The franchise was ruined by a crappy movie and the few die hards around to watch a new Indiana Jones flick won't be enough to make the film break even."But most of the younger generation hasn't even seen the original movies or the newer one, and are more likely to want to see a new reboot after a trailer or two showing the storyline."Doesn't matter if they gain 2 billion total. If you gain only 2 billion instead of 10 billion then it's actually an 8 billion dollar loss. This is the difference between short term good for Michael Eisner thinking and long term good for Disney, Star Wars and fans thinking."As I said, net gain. So, in this hypothetical situation where they apparently spend $10bil per movie, they would gain $11bil, or a net gain of $1bil."No it's way different. Marvel fans are filtered to the movies through the comic books. If the movies suck they'll still read comic books, but if the comic book sucks the fan base erodes and the Marvel name dies. Star Wars book readers are filtered from the movies. If the books suck, no big deal. If the movies suck then no more/new book fans and the Lucas brand dies."I think you underestimate how many people watch the movies vs. read the comics. Marvel is a growing branch of Disney, and the reader to watcher ratio is getting smaller and smaller with each release. Right now, the average comic book costs about $4 [3], while a movie ticket costs about $8.38 [4]. Marvel's best selling comic of January was Avengers World, selling 86,727 copies for $3.99 each [5], totaling in about $346k. Iron Man 3, often considered the worst of the movies, grossed over a billion dollars [6], showing that Marvel movies at its worst still makes over three times more than comics at their worst. Keep in mind that the rest of Marvel's comics don't even compare to my example's selling figures, and are far lower. It is now clear that Marvel could not only survive as a movie franchise alone, but there are far more people buying movie tickets than comic books. It is a safe assumption that the movies act as a filter, and my point of Star War's EU stands."The new fans won't happen if the movies suck. The old fans will die and new ones won't be there to replace them."Oh, but new people watch Star Wars every day. Reputation alone is enough to provide the new Star Wars movies with enough net gain to fund for the future, and Disney will also more than likely provide and advertise box sets for the original and prequel trilogies.1. http://n4g.com...2. http://www.fool.com...3. http://www.theawl.com...4. http://variety.com...5. http://www.comichron.com...6. https://uk.movies.yahoo.com...