Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Movies Television

Disney Will Test the Limits of 'Franchise Fatigue' in 2021 and 2022 (yahoo.com) 129

Posted by msmash from the closer-look dept.
An anonymous reader shares a report: In November 2019, just a few days after Disney+ launched, Netflix (NFLX) content chief (now co-CEO) Ted Sarandos, speaking at a Paley Center for Media event, said that Disney (DIS) is "bound by" its content universes, a reference mostly to Marvel and Star Wars. He continued: "I do think the risk of being bound in a few universes is that there sometimes may be a melting ice cube of interest over time." That has been the most common knock on Disney for a few years now: that if Disney keeps hitting the Marvel and Star Wars pinatas, fans will get tired of it. But the numbers have proven the theory wrong -- so far. Moviegoers vote with their wallets, and have voted in favor of more Marvel Cinematic Universe installments, more Star Wars stories. Six of the top 10 biggest U.S. box office openings of all time were Marvel movies, four of them "Avengers" movies. "Avengers: Endgame" (2019) is the No. 1 box office release of all time. As for Star Wars, the final three films in the "Skywalker" saga, "The Force Awakens" (2015), "The Last Jedi" (2017), and "The Rise of Skywalker" (2019), each topped $1 billion at the global box office, despite fan criticism of the plot of the final film. Spinoff movie "Rogue One" (2017) also hit the $1 billion mark. But those were all movies, with much-hyped theatrical releases.

On Disney+ over the next two years, Disney will truly test the limits of the fatigue theory with Marvel and Star Wars original shows, and might discover that even the most hardcore fans have a threshold. The sheer mountain of original content Disney unveiled at its 2020 Investor Day this month was almost comical: 52 new shows or movies coming in the next three years across Disney Studios, Disney Animation, Pixar, Marvel, Lucasfilm, National Geographic, ESPN, and FX. In the first year of Disney+, only a single live-action original series, "The Mandalorian," was enough to propel the platform to 86.8 million subscribers. In 2021, Disney will hit the gas, with six Marvel shows hitting Disney+: "WandaVision" in January; "The Falcon and the Winter Soldier" in March; "Loki" in May; animated series "What If...?" in summer; and a "Ms. Marvel" series and "She-Hulk" series (no specific date given, but Disney said 2021). Can even diehard Marvel fans find the time to watch all of those? And those are just the television shows. In theaters over the next two years, Disney will release "Black Widow," "Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings," "Eternals," "Dr. Strange in the Multiverse of Madness," "Thor: Love and Thunder," "Black Panther 2," and "Captain Marvel 2." The Star Wars faucet won't start blasting until 2022 and 2023, when Disney+ will get the Star Wars spinoff shows "Andor," "Ahsoka," "Obi-Wan Kenobi," "Star Wars: Visions," "The Bad Batch," "Rangers of the New Republic," and "Lando."

When critics talk about Disney's franchise fatigue risk, they're mostly talking about Marvel and Star Wars, but if you look elsewhere in the Disney+ lineup there are additional examples of the argument. Disney's live-action releases coming over the next two years include a "Cheaper by the Dozen" remake movie, another "Lion King" live action movie, and live-action remakes of "The Little Mermaid," "Pinocchio," and "Peter Pan," plus a sequel to "Enchanted," a Cruella De Vil live-action origin movie, and "Sister Act 3." Disney is also planning a "Night at the Museum" animated series, a "Diary of a Wimpy Kid" animated series, and a "Chip N' Dale" animated movie. The criticism that almost everything Disney is doing is a prequel, sequel, remake, or spin-off is not unwarranted.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Disney Will Test the Limits of 'Franchise Fatigue' in 2021 and 2022 More

Disney Will Test the Limits of 'Franchise Fatigue' in 2021 and 2022

Comments Filter:

  • Disney? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nospam007 ( 722110 ) * on Tuesday December 29, 2020 @10:02AM (#60875338)

    "The criticism that almost everything Disney is doing is a prequel, sequel, remake, or spin-off is not unwarranted."

    They are the first recyclers.

    I've been reading the very same, unchanged Duck Man Carl Barks* Comics, republished as 'new' every couple of years, for 60 fucking years.

    I paid for some of the very same comic stories at least 10-15 times over the years.

    *
    "The guy created Duckburg and many of its inhabitants, such as Scrooge McDuck (1947), Gladstone Gander (1948), the Beagle Boys (1951), The Junior Woodchucks (1951), Gyro Gearloose (1952), Cornelius Coot (1952), Flintheart Glomgold (1956), John D. Rockerduck (1961) and Magica De Spell (1961). "
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by GoTeam ( 5042081 )
      Do the comics get better every time, or is it the exact same art and text? Just curious. I've paid for replacements of things I've lost or movies/stories that may introduce new content. I suppose you could be more interested in collecting all of a set (and it truly is none of my business but my curiosity convinced me to ask), but just wanted to know why you'd have so many copies.

      • "Do the comics get better every time, or is it the exact same art and text?"

        Everything the same.

      • I don't have "many copies". I buy them for the kids and grand-kids and obviously I read them first and every couple of months they contain the same stories I read many many times over when I was young.

        OK, Carl Barks stories are the very best Disney ever had, but anyway, why do I have to pay for the same thing every time?

    • Well, why the fuck did you do that??

      I can understand being duped *once*.
      But *fifteen times*?
      You're part of the problem, mate!

    • If the movies are good, people will watch them.

  • Disney isn't limited to existing franchises (Score:3)

    by magzteel ( 5013587 ) on Tuesday December 29, 2020 @10:04AM (#60875344)

    I don't understand his argument. Disney has lucrative franchises that they milk with impunity but they are in no way limited by these existing franchises. For example, every new non-sequel Pixar movie could potentially start a whole new franchise. Netflix wishes that had Disney's IP.

    • The real question is this: Did people only watch Marvel and SW sequels because they were the only big budget CGI explosion fests coming out? Or are Marvel and SW sequels the only big budget CGI explosion fests coming out because people only watch those?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by ranton ( 36917 )

        Did people only watch Marvel and SW sequels because they were the only big budget CGI explosion fests coming out? Or are Marvel and SW sequels the only big budget CGI explosion fests coming out because people only watch those?

        It seems pretty clear it is the latter. Disney first tried making Tron into a franchise and failed. Then there was John Carter, the Oz movies, The Lone Ranger, Tomorrowland, A Wrinkle in Time, The Nutcracker, Artemis Fowl and Onward. Disney had expressed the desire for all of these to become franchises but they just didn't see enough success with the movies.

        So Disney bought franchises which were working. Star Wars is a strong enough franchises that even bad movies make a lot of money. The MCU is an exceptio

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Rhipf ( 525263 )

      At one time Netflix did have Disney's IP (at least part of it). 8^)

    • "Every new non-sequel ..."

      Yeah, thee point of TFA is that there will be no such thing anymore. Only milking of old stuff. "Disney -- Death to creativity".

    • This argument from Netflix would apply more to the Likes of CBS, or NBC who is making its own streaming services. Disney is huge, and has a number of big name properties. CBS All Access has Star Trek, which comes and goes, I don't know of anything really big on NBC at all.
      Disney+ I feel is big enough to run off of its own. While the others I feel in time may go back to Netflix or Hulu. After their big name properties get boring again.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by skam240 ( 789197 )

      I don't understand his argument.

      Given the rest of your post I can tell!

      Nowhere is the author claiming that Disney doesn't have the option to create new material or will fail because of "franchise fatigue". What the author is claiming is that Disney may not do as well as it potentially could with it pumping so much money into all these spin offs as people might get tired of endless Marvel and Star Wars content.

      • I don't understand his argument.

        Given the rest of your post I can tell!

        Nowhere is the author claiming that Disney doesn't have the option to create new material or will fail because of "franchise fatigue". What the author is claiming is that Disney may not do as well as it potentially could with it pumping so much money into all these spin offs as people might get tired of endless Marvel and Star Wars content.

        The quote was "In November 2019, just a few days after Disney+ launched, Netflix (NFLX) content chief (now co-CEO) Ted Sarandos, speaking at a Paley Center for Media event, said that Disney (DIS) is "bound by" its content universes, a reference mostly to Marvel and Star Wars."

        I'm saying they aren't "bound" at all. They are blessed to have a number of profitable franchises, along with the talent and capacity to create new ones as they see fit.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by skam240 ( 789197 )

          Well sure, if you take his words literally then yes, he's not making any sense. Pretty sure it's safe to say the co-CEO of Netflix isn't speaking nonsense though and is much more likely talking in metaphor.

          Disney is bound by the massive sums they are spending on all of these movies and series. Studios have finite sums of money to spend on new content and if people do get tired of their focus on these two franchises and stop watching then they stand to lose some real money.

          • Well sure, if you take his words literally then yes, he's not making any sense. Pretty sure it's safe to say the co-CEO of Netflix isn't speaking nonsense though and is much more likely talking in metaphor.

            Disney is bound by the massive sums they are spending on all of these movies and series. Studios have finite sums of money to spend on new content and if people do get tired of their focus on these two franchises and stop watching then they stand to lose some real money.

            Sure I took his words verbatim, without adding my own interpretation.
            Regardless, it doesn't shock me that the co-CEO of Netflix would make negative comments about the launch of a directly competing service with tons of in-demand content. Reminds me of when competing product CEO's were dismissive when the IPhone was introduced.

            https://www.vox.com/2017/1/9/1... [vox.com]

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by skam240 ( 789197 )

              You must have freaked out in history class when you first read about the US as a "melting pot".

              • You must have freaked out in history class when you first read about the US as a "melting pot".

                You probably heard many times that you aren't funny but still you persist.

                Anyway, that quote is from a year ago when Disney+ launched. Here is a longer article from November 2019 with Ted being dismissive about the Disney+ launch.
                https://variety.com/2019/digit... [variety.com]

                This is where we are now:
                https://time.com/5920421/disne... [time.com]
                https://marketrealist.com/p/ne... [marketrealist.com]

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by skam240 ( 789197 )

                  You read something and by your own account it didn't make sense. At no point did you step back and say to yourself "Gee, maybe the reason what is being said here doesn't make sense is because it isn't meant to be taken literally". Instead you charged head first into the nonsense of believing that one of the CEOs of Netflix was literally suggesting that Disney could now only make franchise movies.

                  Don't get fussy with me because I pointed this out.

    • God damn Netflix, just buy all of MGM, they are useless.

      And restart Star Gate.

  • Test the limits? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Ritz_Just_Ritz ( 883997 ) on Tuesday December 29, 2020 @10:08AM (#60875350)

    **yawn**

    The test depth has been reached. Implosion will follow. The plots have mostly gone away and have been replaced by CGI and loud explosions. Combine that with an increasing number of people who don't want to pay $10 for fifty cents worth of popcorn and $5 for 25 cents worth of sugar/water/food coloring and you are witnessing the decline of an entire industry. And with most theaters having been closed for much of the year, I think you're also seeing the light bulb go off with an increasing number of people who realize that they don't miss it at all.

    A brave new world.

    • Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Tuesday December 29, 2020 @10:14AM (#60875376)
      Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • The plots have mostly gone away and have been replaced by CGI and loud explosions.

      That's been happening for what, at least 20 years now? Unfortunately, it's now clear that enough people only care about CGI and loud explosions that we're not going to get much else.

      • No they don't. That is like saying people like drinking piss if that is all you serve at your desert oasis, to people that are almost dying of thirst.
        People don't have a choice!
        And the fact that our children already adapted because they never saw something else in their lives, adds injury to insult!
        So stop spreading spineless loser attitude bullshit.

    • I don't see any reason why people will all of a sudden notice that movie theater popcorn and soda is what most would call expensive (relative to cost of production) when it's been so for at least the last 4 decades.

      The theater industry likely isn't going anywhere in the near future for one big reason, it makes a shitload of money for movie studios. Shoot, a successful flick often makes its cost of production back just on theater ticket sales alone.

  • It's the story, stupid (Score:3)

    by RogueWarrior65 ( 678876 ) on Tuesday December 29, 2020 @10:13AM (#60875374)

    Look, it's all about having a good story. If the story is stupid or boring, it doesn't matter if it's an original or not.

    • Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Tuesday December 29, 2020 @10:33AM (#60875458)
      Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by aitikin ( 909209 )

        let's not call anyone "fans" here, you can't be a fan of a franchise when you hate most of it ;-)

        Thank you!

      • I look at these figures as very similar to myths. The "framework" as you call it are really a set of relationships and metaphors which can be used as shortcuts in storytelling or to develop a deeper layer of understanding to the story or to be used as cultural touchstones in the form of memes, quotes, or quips. These are the roles myth played in "primitive" culture.

        I think copyright law has largely isolated us from this form of storytelling. All our myths precede Mickey Mouse and Disney's rewrite of the law

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • Fortunately all this content gets to be reviewed on RT and IMDb

        Unfortunately, RT won't let you on their site if you're using a browser which is more than a month old. Older than that and they tell you they don't support it and prevent you from seeing anything.

        I didn't use them that much, but since they decided that newer is always better, there's no reason for me to attempt to visit. One less visitor won't be missed, but it's also one less visitor for their advertisers.

    • Yes, it does!

      The whole point is that something old can never be interesting, since you already know it, and hence can never be a good story.
      At best, you can have a new play played with old puppets. But then it is only disguised as something old. That is not what we are talking about.

      We are talking about that all the stories have been told.
      In that "i.p." anyway.
      And they are merely re-shuffling and re-heating the same old plate of story and art again and again and again.

      (The point of art, and stories, is to g

      • The whole point is that something old can never be interesting, since you already know it, and hence can never be a good story.

        What an utterly stupid thing to say.

  • Weren't there as many as 3 Law and Order weekly series on the same broadcast TV station at one time?

    What I have seen on youtube is that anybody who makes a few good videos and decides to "go professional" (for a living) is quickly stuck on the treadmill of churning out content regularly - that is, weekly or even every other day - even though there is no way there is that much to say about their subject.

    • The big networks had about 3 to 4 hours per day for at least 6 days of week to fill for prime time viewing. That was around 24 hours of new content per week for about 26 weeks a year. Some of that was sports. One sports show could be roughly 4 hours of viewing. In the early days of TV, it was a strategy to get as many live sports shows as possible onto the air, because people liked watching them and they were cheap to produce.

      If streaming is going to replace TV, they will need to be making at least 1 h

      • When you cannot predict which shows will be great, you make many and hope for the next breakout hit.

        While they obviously can't predict with 100% accuracy, this is still an area in which Netflix has a huge edge. They have 20 years of data on what their customers watch and how they've rated it, and can use it to extrapolate to whether a hypothetical new show will be popular. That sweet, sweet consumer data is one of the big reasons Disney needed to spin up their own streaming service instead of continuing to sell of the rights to everything piecemeal.

    • What I have seen on youtube is that anybody who makes a few good videos and decides to "go professional" (for a living) is quickly stuck on the treadmill of churning out content regularly - that is, weekly or even every other day - even though there is no way there is that much to say about their subject.

      This is one reason to love British TV. 6 episodes is plenty for a season. No need for filler episodes that don't advance the plot or even tell much of a story. I know Netflix already has a lot of international content, but I really want more - most countries don't do anything like a 20-episode season. Because that's a ridiculous amount of TV to find time to watch if you like more than a few shows.

  • "In the first year of Disney+, only a single live-action original series, "The Mandalorian," was enough to propel the platform to 86.8 million subscribers."

    I think this is a massive misreading of the show's popularity. Yes, it's the reason some people signed up, but that doesn't explain ongoing subscriptions in a time when people are shifting subscriptions, going with one or two bases and subscribing and binging one service this month and another the next. I think a much more convincing reason for the huge

    • Kids (Score:3)

      by JBMcB ( 73720 )

      My wife is a huge Disney fan, so we pre-bought a three year subscription to Disney+. Our kids love it, they are always finding stuff to watch. The only things on it I particularly care for are Phineas and Ferb, Gravity Falls, and the Mandalorian. It's nice to have the original (but "special edition") Star Wars films on there, but I'm not particularly interested in any of the upcoming Star Wars series. I lost interest in the Marvel films after the last Iron Man movie, though I hadn't even watched all of them

    • I'd add that not only is it that there is a whole lot of content on there that kids will watch and rewatch time and again, but it's a service where everything is "family friendly", so parents don't feel like they need to monitor their kids' use of it too closely.

      And young kids truly do love watching the same things over and over. My young goddaughter, every time I watch her she wants to watch The Princess and the Frog and every time she is totally entranced by it.

    • We get Disney+ "for free" with our Verizon subscription. Otherwise we wouldn't have Disney+. So I'm guessing that there are a ton of subscribers that get it because they are already paying for it some other way - there's no way I can't pay for it with my Verizon account - Verizon will not charge me less for my plan if I don't use Disney+ compared to if I do use it.

      So basically, the subscription numbers are statistics that don't lie, but don't tell the whole story.

  • You could be forgiven if you thought that quality of content had anything to do with their success, but that's really the metric we should be looking at. The MCU worked because, largely, they created quality output ( stinkers like Thor2 and Marvel not withstanding ). Starwars really only worked because of inertia more than quality of recent movies, but the Mandalorian certainly has helped here.

    Disney fails when they choose to, and by that I mean when they get lazy and believe they can do no wrong. Good s

    • The MCU worked because, largely, they created quality output

      "Quality" is way too subjective. I loved the "phase 1" MCU movies. The first Iron Man and Captain America are some of my all time favourite superhero movies. But it was around Age of Ultron that I personally felt the films were nose diving. A few years ago I did a survey of all the MCU films because I wanted to know if it just *felt* like they were going downhill to me, or if I really stopped liking them. And I was right - the number of MCU films that I had not enjoyed had far surpassed the number I enjoyed

      • Individually quality is subjective, but in the aggregate it's not. There are things that work, there are things that don't work.

        For instance, I would say my favorite spiderman series was with Andrew Garfield. Vastly under-rated flicks, I feel as though he's the only one to really pull off "Spiderman" ( if not Peter Parker ). The guardian movies are great too, as is Ragnorak and of course the last two Avengers.

        I do think they need to branch out; we've established superheroes as a "thing", now we need to s

  • Personally, I feel like Disney's strategy with these two massive waves of spin offs is the old time tested tactic of throwing a bunch of shit at the wall and seeing what sticks. I strongly doubt all or even most of these new shows will make it past their second season.

  • Let's have a Marvel-Star Wars crossover!

    "Hulk vs. the Death Star"
    "Luke Skywalker / Spiderman teamup"
    "Deadpool vs. Jar Jar Binks"

    Just think about it, it will be great ;-)

    • The only way I would every watch Star Wars anything produced by Disney would be if they had Deadpool pop into every scene to break the fourth wall and talk about how dumpster fire level the plot and characters are. Even that would only hold my interest for an episode or two.

  • It isn't just Disney: there are too many franchises in the same genre that are being produced simultaneously. Consequently, the audience for any one show is not big enough so they are all canceled within 2 seasons, in the middle of a story arc. At this point I wait several years before I start a series to avoid the let-down. The only reason to watch something as it comes out is to be able to talk about it with friends, but with so much available people are not talking about the same thing.

  • Before everyhing started to be a remake, sequel, prequel, etc.
    When the normal case was that a release was something *new*, not the same old "i.p." again like it was Internet Explorer 6.

    This is what imaginary property gets us.
    "Protecting" artists, my ass.
    More like protection money for Disney's idea monopolies.

    • No I don't. (Score:4, Informative)

      by mykepredko ( 40154 ) on Tuesday December 29, 2020 @12:42PM (#60876034) Homepage

      Franchises have been around since the beginning of movies.

      Consider:
      - James Bond, going on 60 years now
      - Rocky
      - Planet of the Apes
      - The Pink Panther
      - Friday the 13th
      - The Thin Man
      - Sherlock Holmes
      - Charlie Chan
      - Dracula & Universal Horror Movies
      - Bowery Boys
      - Andy Hardy

      I can literally go on and on but I should probably add the longest one of all: "Tarzan".

      Franchising of movies is not a new or Disney thing. I guess it just seems that way.

  • I've already overdosed on superhero shows. I'm in awe of how the MCU has played out since Iron Man, emulating the feel of multiple comics franchises, each with a different tone, co-existing under one masthead. That said, I haven't even watched Avengers Endgame yet. It's like the Big Crossover Event that Marvel or DC likes to pull every now and again. I'm just not that interested in half the characters.

    I was also a big fan of the DC shows on CW. Didn't care much for Arrow, it was too much of a soap opera

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by qzzpjs ( 1224510 )

      That said, I haven't even watched Avengers Endgame yet. It's like the Big Crossover Event that Marvel or DC likes to pull every now and again. I'm just not that interested in half the characters.

      Well, the good news about End Game is that thanks to Thanos, they only have half the characters!

  • All these sequels and prequels and still no one has made another Matrix. It seems so easy no one could mess it up.

  • It's hard to get fatigued when there are huge lengths of time between movies. "Do we really want to see another Dr. Marvel movie? We just saw one only...4 years ago."

  • If copyright was for five years, then these lazy, unimaginative dimwits at Disney would be forced to come up with some original material. But that can not be allowed...

  • I've never really bought into the whole "franchise fatigue" theory. When you get right down to it aren't 90% of these movies just a retelling of The Hero's Journey [wikipedia.org] anyway?

    What kills these franchises isn't that audiences get bored, it's that the studios rest on their laurels. They know that anything Star Wars or Marvel is going to sell like hot cakes so instead of focusing on writing good stories they phone it in milking the brand or use it as a vehicle for a political message. And we end up with "subverting

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by gweihir ( 88907 )

      If you take into account that a "modern" enterprise cannot really see the future more than one year ahead (if that), this makes perfect sense. Why do anything strategically (i.e. where you actually have to understand your own business model), when you can just do short-term crap. And then these morons do not understand what went wrong when that fails. Of course they will be blaming everybody else, They implemented their short-term tactics perfectly, after all. It is not theit fault the market suddenly behav

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by shmlco ( 594907 )

      Disagree. What kills franchises is when the studio decides they have a "formula" and they try to make subsequent movies follow the same formula beat-for-beat-for-beat. Think Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom.

      To make a franchise work you need to tell new stories using the same universe. Which is also compounded by the fact that, like any story, it needs to be good.

      That's what's killing the DC universe. Most of the stories are crap.

  • Surely there's more money to milk from that idea.

  • Another large heap of crap I do not even need to bother having a cursory look at. The excessive stupidity of "The Mandalorian" was quite enough to give me a good appreciation where this is going.

  • One thing that's easy to miss about these big franchise series - these series are closer to traditional miniseries in terms of viewer time commitment. Let me compare to the CW's Arrowverse and related shows, which absolutely caused fatigue. It ballooned to 5-6 series, each with 20-23 episodes (!) per season each at 45 minutes. I liked the first couple well enough, but it was ultimately enough of a chore that mild interest didn't overcome.

    The Mandalorian is certainly costlier to produce than those shows, but

  • The media only began talking about fatigue when Star Wars faltered. The MCU ran perfectly fine because these were good films that had a sense of continuity.

    The problem is not fatigue. The problem instead comes from bad products - particularly when they go woke. The Star Wars films underperformed and divided the audience because Disney wanted to jettison continuity, pushing aside the old characters and quickly replacing them with a new supposedly diverse cast. This was due to politics and to have marketable

    • DC overall is failing because thereÃ(TM)s no consistent vision across their films.

      Nah it's failing because individually most of the films are utter shite. BvS? suicide squad? Man of steel? Justice league?

  • Let's hope people get franchise fatigue! I've heard people here say that these movies are made by comic book fans, which maybe true but that doesn't mean these fans have that much control. When a studio/distributor like Disney spends $230 million just on the film and the same again on marketing they couldn't give a stuff what fans want. They need a return on the money they spent and no one in the project is left free of micro management, they can't be with that type of money being spent.

    There maybe parall

  • They're right. I have no interest in any more Marvel movies or Star Wars movies, and have not seen the past couple of each.

  • Most honest and "young" screenwriters write crossovers / RPFs [shlomifish.org] and they are often far better than the "original" content that hollywood produces. I am on a mission to convert the film industry to the geek / amateur/ share / open / free model: Queen Padmé [ Amidala ] Tales [shlomifish.org].

    You win by being a hacker and working smart - not hard [shlomifish.org]

    Happy new year from Tel Aviv, Israel!

Slashdot Top Deals

Ummm, well, OK. The network's the network, the computer's the computer. Sorry for the confusion. -- Sun Microsystems

Close