>>37855
>Aparently the story of the next Avengers capeshit has been leaked. The leak says that Jackman's Wolverine and Maguire's Spiderman are going to appear at the beggining just to quickly die due to some multiverse shit.
That's okay, the MCU "ended" for me in 2016 with AoU, as just about everything afterwards goes full-retard. Though I will admit that I want to see D&W, seeing as how it ties up all the "loose" ends of this clusterfuck of a cinematic universe.
>Are the writers in Hollywood such delusional hacks that they don't understand the backlash this is going to have if it's true?
It's a cheap attempt at emotional-bait. The Star Wars sequel trilogy did the same thing by killing off Han in TFA, because the idea is that you'll give a shit about the stakes and these new characters if a character you actually like "dies". Funny thing is that, in that particular instance, it isn't anything new to Star Wars as the first book in the New Jedi Order series back in 1999, that introduced the Vong as the new galactic threat after the demise of the Empire, did the same exact thing by killing off Chewbacca. And wouldn't you know it, people ridiculed that move back then for being a cheap attempt at emotional bait. And it's only now after BOTH the sequels AND the prequels that people finally forgive that stunt.
>Hollyweird then will move to ruin both anime and vidya with their shit adaptations
I know the Minecraft, Sonic, and Mario movies where hot shit when looking at the numbers, but I honestly don't give a crap about them. And it seems like majority of people more tolerate them than actually like the movies. Everyone I've at least talked to hates "stronk" Peach, and not looking forward to Captain Marvel Rosalina. Moe/fast/ almost universally agrees that the Sonic films are somehow lower in quality than "The Adventures Of Chris Throndyke", but cannot agree if the films got better as they went along or worsened. And the Minecraft movie felt like everyone involved was too emberassed to admit they even say it after all the "Chicken jockey" clips posted on TitKok.
As for anime movies, seems like the only "decent" ones that "recently" came out where BLA and LDR:EoT as every other attempt has been outright trash.
>>37857
>Somewhere around the mid 2000s, streaming and recording devices killed the home video market.
You're also leaving out vidya was out-competing every other form of entertainment without even trying. Also, I don't believe that DVD has collapsed as much as people believe. The Blu-Ray market, sure, but you can still go out and by DVD releases of practically any series these days (Even finding them in Wally World). And I wouldn't be surprised if streaming is actually keeping these sales stable.
Let me explain my theory. After Sony and Apple began yanking media from people's libraries, and how game consoles are steadily moving towards removing the ability to even use a physical form of media, the public wisenned up to the fact that this "all digital" future meant that you truly owned nothing. Which is why DVD players and DVD sales are still going strong. But there in lies the problem, how do you know which media is worth "buying" then? To which the answer is ""STREAMING"". Just like how the video/game rental stores existed for the purpose of allowing you to decide if a game/movie was worth buying, the streaming services are allowing you to watch all these wonderful series for a low fee (That is when they're not just giving it to you for free, like how AT&T/T-Mobile bundled Max/Netflix with their phone plans, and Xfinity bundling Peacock with their internet; ""IN ADDITON"" this practice may also be fudging the numbers of just how many people even are paying for this shit) that allows for you to then decide if it's worth going out and buying these shows so that you'll have a personal copy that you own.
Like I said, this is my personal theory on how the market looks going into the future.
>https://arkhaven.substack.com/p/hollywood-on-life-support-the-franchise?utm_source=publication-search
<After the John Carter disaster, he gave up trying to create any in-house franchises entirely.
And, that's bullshit!
The failure of John Carter happened ""AFTER"" Iger already decided to begin buying up franchises. In fact, that was actually the ""reason"" John Carter failed. It was part of a multi-film agenda by Disney to release several films that appealled to the ever-fleating teenage male audience that they could never seem to capture, which included other projects like Prince of Persia, Tron, and The Lone Ranger. However during the development on John Carter, Disney had already aquired Marvel and where in direct talks to aquire Lucasfilm. And while these talks were underway, the higher-ups felt a little awkward over the fact that development of John Carter was progressing along rather smoothly, ahead of schedule, and under budget. But just before the film release, in a "big brain" move to prevent the film from drawing attention away from the cash cows of Star Wars and Marvel, they give the film a shoe string marketing budget. The result was one of the ""BIGGEST"" box office bombs in history, but they didn't care because Star Wars and Marvel were printing money, which meant they could make all that back.
Funny how that turned out, isn't it?