Resolved: Disney buying out LucasFilms is more positive than negative

"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." I'm not sure if you understand how being an out of touch old man works. It's one thing to be constantly in touch with what your fans want, like Madonna or Stabley Kubrick. Once you are out of touch you're screwed. Comparing Lucas to the makers of Nintendo isn't fair. The gaming industry is very competitive and with a constant influx of new people. You're not going to find a 70 year old out of touch man trying to design games. You'll find the creativity of youth. Lucas and by extension Star Wars works differently. George Lucas has creative control of the Star Wars movies and will continue to suck like he did when he made new episodes of 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 was a actually just trying to show the short sighted let's grab all the cash we can as fast as we can approach that Disney plans to take with Star Wars. This strategy as an overall approach will cause them to create very forgettable movies or worse. It's one thing to bring on some young blood to write a creative groundbreaking movie, but Disney is allowing an old out of touch man to mantain creative control and mixing in their formulaic approach to movie making. This is a combination that can't win. 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. My opponent is equally assuming the movies will be good and using evidence from completely unrelatable things. I'm at least showing things that are relatable. Further more my argument is more then just that Disney made 3 movies. My argument is out of touch old man having creative control, Disney's history of a slash and burn approach to projects that go wrong, and the short term gain with no focus on the longterm approach. This is a dramatically different argument then my opponent has made. My opponent has argued the purchase is good because Disney made good films with Marvel, but Marvel has some bad movies as well. Reread my opponent's first round. This whole back forth is from that. His only arguments were that Disney purchasing Marvel worked out, because they made good movies. I showed the only premise for his conclusion is wrong. 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. That's not really how Disney's slash and burn strategy works. It's a slow burn they completely disassociate themselves from the project. They will let this thing die. Even if they do change strategy and sell Lucas to somebody else, they'll be selling a worthless franchise. One that's a shell of it's former self. 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. You're focusing on net gain instead of potential gain. If you gain $200 but gaining that $200 immediately causes you not to gain $10,00 more later on than you've actually lost $8,800. The rest of my opponent's arguments that I left out of this round rests on a ton of assumptions. In one argument he discusses Marvel entirely too much and doesn't connect that to Disney's purchase of Lucas that well. In the other he argues that Indiana Jones could sell again, but completely ignores recent history showing it can't. In the other he says Disney can just release box sets and do pretty good, which just isn't true. The DVD market is dying and this strategy handcuffs Disney to doing nothing new with the projects that make the Lucas name worth the purchase price. It's also clear as previously cited that Disney has and to milk the Lucas name for everything it's worth now. Thank you 7th, for debating this topic with me and thanks to everyone reading this debate.