Jump to content

Economic Corner 09 - media properties dictate? - 01/28/2025

richardmurray
   (0 reviews)
RMCommunityCalendar

This event began 01/28/2025 and repeats every year forever

What she misses is a crossroads of three things. First, the studios want to maximize profit, which means they want to use media properties they already own and attract the most sales. Second, the properties studios own are quite old, decades old, centuries old and tend to be created by white people of european descent filled with mostly characters described in appearance or culture as white of european descent, which has the problem of not being as attractive to non whites than non white characters. Third, the modern buyers of media content are not overwhelmingly , overwhelmingly meaning seventy five percent or more , of white European descent and the studios want to cater to them. 
The three elements show the problem. The studios always want to save money+ not risk money, which means the studios are not going to buy new non white European characters or use lesser known non white European characters that many, including many non whites of European descent, don't know. 
So with the desire to maximize profits + risk least investment revenue this means changing white European characters they already own into non white European characters is most efficient.
This is what I think many, Black or non black are missing.  When I think on most popular movies in the last thirty years, few are of a new property. Every star wars/star trek/marvel/dc film is of an old property. Every biopic is of an old property, that being a famous person. Little that makes the most money is new, is unheard of. 
Even nosferatu which has made a splash is again, is old. So, if old properties are the fans are buying, and all the old characters owned by studios is white, simple arithmetic to save money or risk less revenue is to change characters already owned to fit the non white European buyer. 
And again, prove the studios wrong, not with artistic judgement videos or human communal statement videos but by sales. 
Consider DC has access to Milestone and yet, it never occurred to them to give milestone characters their own movies. Here is a comic imprint made by non white Europeans, mostly blacks, that has a gallery of non white European characters made by non white Europeans. DC made birds of prey changing white European descent characters. 
Marvel treats black panther as their non white world movies. Black panther 1 had more black people in an action sci fi adventure than ever before. black panther 2 added first peoples of the Americas taking namor the submariner and changing his character's design dramatically. But this was cheaper, and the profits prove the studios right. 
The biggest problem with this issue is, and I can speak of this as a writer. New characters or lesser known characters haven't proven to have big money legs. Notice I didn't say they couldn't they haven't proven it. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Czf2k-WJ6iU


MY COMMENT
The problem the studios have is they want to always save money + risk the least revenue developing+ gain the most buyers in modernity which has many more buyers not of white european descent than ever before, and based on financial results of films, year in and year out, it only leads to one conclusion and that is race swapping. To restate my point, the financial returns of the film industry prove their race swapping actions correct, against other options. 

TRANSCRIPT

 

 

Prior Post

 

https://aalbc.com/tc/topic/11424-economiccorner008/

POST URL
https://aalbc.com/tc/topic/11444-economiccorner009/

PRIOR EDITION

https://aalbc.com/tc/events/event/144-economic-corner-8-january-15th-2025/

NEXT EDITION

https://aalbc.com/tc/events/event/166-economic-corner-10-online-divestiture- 01282025/

 

economic corner banner.png


User Feedback

There are no reviews to display.

×
×
  • Create New...