Seibertron.com Energon Pub Forums

I might as well put in my two cents this rumor.

Disney as all coporations is in the business of making money. It is their primary goal, everything else just fluff, public relations, charity, etc. This is can be good, bad, or indifferent. Disney is buying Hasbro to get money and probably money from different source (toys) than main venture, simply a diversification of portfolio, nothing more or less. Disney will do what is good for business and will not do anything intentionally to mess up Hasbro which will cost them cash. Disney may just have a minor restructing of Hasbro. (The rest of just scenarios, which probably won't happen). Maybe, Disney will look at G1 and let the folks of Pixar do a G1 movies. Maybe, they will go the teen audience and do something insane like make Wheelie (who says stuff in rhyme) into a major character to get a "rapper." Disney might eventually shift production of the toys to somewhere like Vietnam when Chinese labor and factories get too expensive. The toys may go up or down in quality (and Mickey's head is only going to a special collectors edition if at all!). Heck, Disney may just sell Hasbro a couple of years after they buy it. I don't know and don't pretend to know. In fact, we probably couldn't even predict or guess what changes for TFs would occur. The best question y'all should ask on any idea of change in TFs would be "Would this make Disney's money or be a waste of Disney's money?" Answer this question, and then you might know what Disney might do if this rumor is true.

d_sel1 wrote:I might as well put in my two cents this rumor.

Disney as all coporations is in the business of making money. It is their primary goal, everything else just fluff, public relations, charity, etc. This is can be good, bad, or indifferent. Disney is buying Hasbro to get money and probably money from different source (toys) than main venture, simply a diversification of portfolio, nothing more or less. Disney will do what is good for business and will not do anything intentionally to mess up Hasbro which will cost them cash. Disney may just have a minor restructing of Hasbro. (The rest of just scenarios, which probably won't happen). Maybe, Disney will look at G1 and let the folks of Pixar do a G1 movies. Maybe, they will go the teen audience and do something insane like make Wheelie (who says stuff in rhyme) into a major character to get a "rapper." Disney might eventually shift production of the toys to somewhere like Vietnam when Chinese labor and factories get too expensive. The toys may go up or down in quality (and Mickey's head is only going to a special collectors edition if at all!). Heck, Disney may just sell Hasbro a couple of years after they buy it. I don't know and don't pretend to know. In fact, we probably couldn't even predict or guess what changes for TFs would occur. The best question y'all should ask on any idea of change in TFs would be "Would this make Disney's money or be a waste of Disney's money?" Answer this question, and then you might know what Disney might do if this rumor is true.

The rumor was dismissed. However, there is one business venture that is both beneficial and profitable for both parties.

I think, if Disney were to buy Hasbro, it wouldn't be to make money as much as to save money. As has been previously established, Marvel and Star Wars both license to Hasbro for their merchandise, so for Disney to buy Hasbro it would just be bringing the toy production for their licenses back under their mantle. Owning the means of production, as they say. They would make a bit of money from the sales of the toys but mostly it would just be to save some licensing money. Honestly I think their interference in the affairs of Transformers would be negligible at best. If they went after any Hasbro property in particular, it would be My Little Pony, given its overwhelming popularity.

This is IF Disney were to buy Hasbro, I know the rumor has been debunked for now.

That Bot wrote:I think, if Disney were to buy Hasbro, it wouldn't be to make money as much as to save money. As has been previously established, Marvel and Star Wars both license to Hasbro for their merchandise, so for Disney to buy Hasbro it would just be bringing the toy production for their licenses back under their mantle. Owning the means of production, as they say. They would make a bit of money from the sales of the toys but mostly it would just be to save some licensing money. Honestly I think their interference in the affairs of Transformers would be negligible at best. If they went after any Hasbro property in particular, it would be My Little Pony, given its overwhelming popularity.

This is IF Disney were to buy Hasbro, I know the rumor has been debunked for now.

+1

Disney isn't in the business of tinkering with the winning formulas of the properties they acquire, they just want to lower overhead and maximize their returns as much as possible.

Funny how they can do all of this just by being in the business of making kids smile.

TDK Akita wrote:Funny how they can do all of this just by being in the business of making kids smile.

Amen to that!

Seibertron wrote:

TDK Akita wrote:Funny how they can do all of this just by being in the business of making kids smile.

Amen to that!

Grownups too. I think if some of the haters could spend one day in Disneyland with an open mind they'd see the sheer effort that goes into making it live up to its tagline 'The Happiest Place on Earth'. Their customer service and quality is unparalleled, and while they are a media company that makes tons of profit, they are indeed in the business of making people happy.

kirbenvost wrote:

Seibertron wrote:

TDK Akita wrote:Funny how they can do all of this just by being in the business of making kids smile.

Amen to that!

Grownups too. I think if some of the haters could spend one day in Disneyland with an open mind they'd see the sheer effort that goes into making it live up to its tagline 'The Happiest Place on Earth'. Their customer service and quality is unparalleled, and while they are a media company that makes tons of profit, they are indeed in the business of making people happy.

And to top it off, the great Walt himself once said, "I do not make movies for children; I make movies for the child in all of us."

KUMA-NIN Maximus wrote:

WolfSpider1979 wrote:NO! NO! SMEG NO! They can't have it! If they want "My Little Pony", that's one thing. I'd still shove two fingers in their face with a raspberry. Those piece of smeg jerk-wads have ruined what Walt made. They have sullied that company with the cries of PERVERTS for more! I have a feeling they'll try to make Sideswipe and Sunstreaker grope in a closet for a month, then "bring them out" with Red Alert. NO SMEGGING WAY!

Wolf-Spider

One, you ignored the fact that this was a rumor.
Two, you did not see that this cannot happen as-is.
And three, Robert Iger is not Michael Eisner.

The fact that this is a rumor is not lost on me. I'm against the very idea that they would get their hands on it. I still have a boycott on that company, because I've seen no change in their policies. They still have "Gay-Day Parades," and show no signs of denouncing them. They had one when we went with my dad's late brother. Until they ban them, I want nothing to do with them. I don't care who is in charge.

WolfSpider1979 wrote:

KUMA-NIN Maximus wrote:

WolfSpider1979 wrote:NO! NO! SMEG NO! They can't have it! If they want "My Little Pony", that's one thing. I'd still shove two fingers in their face with a raspberry. Those piece of smeg jerk-wads have ruined what Walt made. They have sullied that company with the cries of PERVERTS for more! I have a feeling they'll try to make Sideswipe and Sunstreaker grope in a closet for a month, then "bring them out" with Red Alert. NO SMEGGING WAY!

Wolf-Spider

One, you ignored the fact that this was a rumor.
Two, you did not see that this cannot happen as-is.
And three, Robert Iger is not Michael Eisner.

The fact that this is a rumor is not lost on me. I'm against the very idea that they would get their hands on it. I still have a boycott on that company, because I've seen no change in their policies. They still have "Gay-Day Parades," and show no signs of denouncing them. They had one when we went with my dad's late brother. Until they ban them, I want nothing to do with them. I don't care who is in charge.

And what's wrong with that? Aren't they allowed to show their support for that just as you've shown your distain for it? I'm sure there are at least a few members of this forum that you've already made sick and offended just by the way you phrased your comment.

WolfSpider1979 wrote:The fact that this is a rumor is not lost on me. I'm against the very idea that they would get their hands on it. I still have a boycott on that company, because I've seen no change in their policies. They still have "Gay-Day Parades," and show no signs of denouncing them. They had one when we went with my dad's late brother. Until they ban them, I want nothing to do with them. I don't care who is in charge.

So your basis is that they promote Gay rights? So what? Ezekiel talked about why God had punished the people of Sodom in 16:49: "Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy."

How about the following?

- 1 Chronicles 2:34, 2:35, 3:1-9
- 1 Kings 1:11, 1:13
- 2 Samuel 16:21
- Deuteronomy 22:13-21, 22:28-29
- Ephesians 6:5
- Genesis 16:3, 19:26
- Judges 21:7-23
- Leviticus 25:44-48

- Matthew 19:9, 19:29 <-(This says that you shall not divorce or commit adultery. Something I do not see you opposing. I mean seeing how this entailed to Gay rights being forbidden if they are sexual, not anything else. Plus, the Bible details the need to procreate and not who to hate. )

In other words: While you may have not ignored that, you may have been mislead on homosexuality. And I do not know who is worse on that: Adolf Hitler, who had 15,000 gay men and women sent to concentration camps... Or Pat Robertson for using them as a means to promote hate and the need to remove anything that is neither Christian and/or Conservative.