November 2012 - Puddin'

The MotM is an interview that the team does at the end of each month. It's a fun way of finding out about respected members of the community.

Modérateurs : EN - Assistant Moderators, EN - Forum Moderators

Re: Member of the Month: November 2012 

Message par Phantom » Dim Déc 09, 2012 9:30 am

@LP I liked Zwei, I thought he was a pretty unique character gameplay-wise. And Patroklos, when you know how to play with him, is FAST, and I mean EXTREMELY fast with his true-sword mode.


@Energizerman, what kind of robots? Or do you mean in general? If in general, yes, I do, assuming they can do lots of varied tasks :P


@Singi I'm assuming you are referring to the United State's case specifically, for I don't have any idea of the causes/effects of the financial crisis occurring in the rest of the world. Watch this space as I'll answer this one later.
Phantom
 

Re: Member of the Month: November 2012 

Message par Singidava » Dim Déc 09, 2012 7:55 pm

Puddin' a écrit :@Singi I'm assuming you are referring to the United State's case specifically, for I don't have any idea of the causes/effects of the financial crisis occurring in the rest of the world. Watch this space as I'll answer this one later.

United State's case specifically? Well, duh. Were there more than one major financial crisis in 2008 than the one that started in US? I don't think so...
I'm not asking you what effects he crisis had but how it was caused and how to prevent it from happening again. And considering the crisis began from US sub-prime loans are there that many other places I could mean?
Avatar de l’utilisateur
Singidava
 
Message(s) : 1620
Inscription : Ven Juil 23, 2010 6:56 pm
Localisation : Finland
Genre: Féminin
Langues parlées: suomi, English, svenska & 日本語

Re: Member of the Month: November 2012 

Message par Phantom » Mar Déc 11, 2012 8:11 am

There are a multitude of factors attributable to the financial crisis of 2008, it's not just one bad source.

And while there was only one major crisis in 2008 for the United States, you have to remember that it wasn't the first time the country was facing an economical crisis in the 2000s. As you slightly mentioned (the talk of subprime loans), we had a mortgage housing crisis just a year earlier due to the housing bubble completely bursting because banks essentially were lending out loans of ALL types (credit card, mortgage, auto, etc.) left and right unchecked.
It was due to the idea that although housing prices were soaring that year, banks could somehow recoup the costs of an individual refinancing a home, because at that time the interests rates for the loans was low. Not only this, but for previous years leading to 2007, there was a significant chunk of foreign money investments to financial institutions being pumped into the U.S. economy, which made applying for a loan of an individual be VERY easy, subprime borrower or not.

There's a downside to that, for while it was easy to apply for a loan of any type of amount, it made most individuals assume a high amount of debt.
However, this wasn't really an issue compared to what it was like on the bank side.

You see, the housing bubble attracted foreign investments into the housing market of the United States. Because housing prices were soaring higher and higher, most financial institutions invested into a certain type of "security", called a "mortgage-backed security", or MBS.
An MBS, in the most simplified concept, is a type of security that represents cash flow. This cash flow essentially claims a certain monetary value, whereas said value is based/derived from both a mortgage payment, AND the value of a house, for a financial institution.

This was (in theory) supposed to benefit everyone involved because it was a type of security that brought in foreign investors into the housing market in the first place, which would allow them to reap a significant profit from the two conditions (mortgage payments, and the increasing value of the house). With supposedly high demand for homes, nothing could go wrong it seems.

Unfortunately, the housing bubble burst at some point, in which suddenly the housing prices started dropping significantly (some houses in the U.S. were reported to be lower than an average mortgage payment!)
Good thing for the consumer right? Nope, for in order for financial institutions to recoup the losses, they had to charge higher interests rates or make the mortgage payment amount higher, to a point where an individual could no longer be able to afford to pay off their loans in the first place.

This led to many individuals to default on their loans...It wouldn't have been an issue to deal with higher payments were it not for the fact that other parts of the U.S. economy had taken some serious strains at the time. You can't pay off your loan at all if you can't even pay off your mortgage payment after all.

As you stated, many of these individuals who applied to these loans were ones considered to be someone that would struggle with paying their scheduled payments on time. In the banking world, lending a loan to these types of individuals is a subprime loan. Most institutions took a heavy risk committing to these loans. But how can you really blame them? Before the burst, the state of the economy regarding the housing market was prettyyyy good for the banks!

Because the housing prices were getting lower, and because alot of loans were defaulting, it meant that ALOT of financial institutions incurred HEAVY losses, because they invested into an MBS.
A report by the International Monetary Fund released in 2010 stated that the losses incurred by the financial institutions (because houses started becoming worthless but at the same time individuals couldn't pay off their loans and forced to default) was in the trillions. TRILLIONS. Financial institutions from both the U.S. AND outside of the U.S. kept suffering loss after loss!

The housing market completely busted.
The mortgage crisis of 2007 is what many economists state was the leadup to the financial crisis of 2008.

How could the U.S. economy deal with this, especially considering it was still making a steady recovery from the dot com bubble burst from the early 2000s...which costed the U.S. economy around $5 trillion on the entire technology sector?


Look here, we haven't even touched the Wall Street crash yet!

Still, I will make an attempt to continue answering this question when I get sick of work and need to take a break :LO
Phantom
 

Re: Member of the Month: November 2012 

Message par Phantom » Jeu Déc 13, 2012 12:27 am

I'm done with work now! I'm ready for more questions (hopefully it will be less politically-driven because those types of questions take too long for me to answer LOL)


Continuing on where I left off, the MBS was obviously a bad deal for just about every financial institution out there.


Especially for some investment banks, like the Lehman Brothers bank. You see, investment banks had much lighter regulations to deal with than depository banks back then. So they were allowed to take high risks, even if they didn't have the capital to back up those risks. This is related to leveraging, where you back a certain capital sum amount by a *bigger* loan in order to reap a higher payout. A high-risk, high-reward venture. The Lehman Bros made use of leveraging ALOT to commit to investments of all kinds. In good financial stable times, it's super effective. In crumbling, unstable financial times, it can lead to a complete collapse.


To keep this short, the minute that the Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy, was the minute that the DOW Jones stock dropped over 500 points. That's not really a good thing, considering the Lehman Brothers bank held assets worth around $600 billion. And it was the only company that the federal government (who's executive was still George W. Bush Jr. at the time) refused to bail out...out of all banks out there, they refused to bail out one of the most important investment banks for the U.S...But, who could really blame the administration? After all, just a decade earlier the Lehman Brothers faced a similar financial situation, and they made a strong recovery from their impending doom at that time.

Many policy analysts believe Bush's lack of action on this regard made the financial crisis of 2008 come sooner rather than later.

To understand why they failed, a federal investigation came into play looking at the internal workings of the bank.

Well...They covered a high amount of bad investments through the use of another "front" company to 'handle' the bad investments. This way, for accounting purposes, it would show to any potential investors that Lehman Brothers can deal/bounce back from any *potential* bad investments. Before 2008 occurred, they were borrowing alot of capital from investors to invest in many types of assets...mainly, an MBS.

But it also turns out that even while facing bankruptcy, the Lehman Brother's top executives were getting pay increases of over millions...and that's just bonus pay.
...Which, isn't really a good idea, especially when you have a House of Representative calling you out on this fact on a hearing of which you, the executive, had to give testimony for.
--------------------------------------------------

As for Wall Street, it's quite simple. Many stock gamblers (greedy or otherwise) looking to make their stock portfolio look elegant and beautiful, even mouth-watering to potential investors, placed too many bets on short-term capital asset investments. It worked for a short time, but because no one was investing in long-term capital assets, a contraction occurred for many stocks for "holding" out on temporary assets that would not actually add any value to stocks in the long-term. When I say contraction, I mean a large amount of investors no longer confident in these stocks.

With no capital to get now after this realization by many investors, the value of numerous stocks plummeted. Obviously, this stint by the gamblers would be a big factor in as to why Wall Street crashed in 2008 (and helping to spew out the financial crisis).

Was Wall Street greedy? Yes, I do agree with that. But did their greedyness cause the financial crisis? Nope. I blame federal government deregulation for allowing Wall Street to be greedy in the first place. There have been reports on the Federal Bank of Reserves at that time that showed they committed to no oversight for many firms due to some supposed "political sensitivity" to do their job as regulators. At least I think it was the fed bank...or some agency that was supposed to monitor and regulate Wall Street.
Phantom
 

Re: Member of the Month: November 2012 

Message par FenrirDarkWolf » Jeu Déc 13, 2012 3:43 am

How do you feel about the way the world is right now?
Avatar de l’utilisateur
FenrirDarkWolf
 
Message(s) : 7521
Inscription : Sam Mai 08, 2010 4:30 pm
Localisation : Following the Arrow
Genre: Masculin
Langues parlées: English

Re: Member of the Month: November 2012 

Message par Phantom » Jeu Déc 13, 2012 4:27 am

I am apathetic to the way the world is, for I have personally seen and experienced what it is like to be in poverty, to be in sufferable living conditions, to live in a world where taking two steps will easily be your last steps you will ever take before an explosion will kill you without you ever realizing it. It is a world I do not care to ponder about.


But I am also excited to the way the world is right now, a society that is constantly adapting in terms of politcs, social norms, culture (albeit slowly), and especially technologies that keep on improving and saving the lives of everyone on this planet, and expanding our knowledge of the universe.

Honestly though, your question is quite relevant to how I would feel in terms of how I have "faith in humanity". Yet, I'm just a tiny piece of a puzzle consisting of 7 billion pieces. The world is ever changing daily, so my feelings about such a giant place could easily change tomorrow :P
Phantom
 

Re: Member of the Month: November 2012 

Message par Singidava » Jeu Déc 13, 2012 10:14 pm

About 2007... Do you know why so many wanted to invest in sub-primes anyways (and therefore causing the bubble)? It's because the rating agencies had rated many of those loans way above their real credibility. Why? Simply because the rating agencies get money for good ratings. That's what they're paid for: investment advice. Some people claim that this conflict of interest caused them to give good ratings to poor investments, instabilising the market as a direct result from their greed.

You say the crisis was goverment's fault because they didn't have enough regulations? In that case, did you know that all these regulations were systematically removed to allow the financial market take bigger risks? And the biggest supporters for this removal have been... no one else than (surprise, surprise) the Wall Street lobbyists. This is another way you could claim that it was the Wall Street greed that caused the crisis. To get the short term gains they encouraged massive risk-taking that instabilised the system even further. (Though Bush is at fault too - it was the Rebpublicans that favored these ideas in actual politics. In the end, you could even claim that it's the regular people who are at fault for allowing the politicians to go so far. After all, in a democracy it's not only a people's *right* to vote and influence to the society but a *responsibility*. Of course, that's unfair as normal people generally know little about these issues but it's up to the people of the country to supervise their leaders. No one else can do it for them. If someone did, it wouldn't be a democracy anymore.)

Another thing that made regulating even harder were the "experts at economy" and the advisors the regulators use in general. Actually, not only the experts and advisors but the people who do the regulating themselves... are none other than the very same people who'd profit the most from having the limits removed - those who have strong connections to the Wall Street. The problem is that you can't be a convincing expert on economy unless you have a massive fortune gained at the Wall Street yourself. And these "top experts" are recycled from a high position to position allowing very little new blood to emerge and criticize the system. Though even if they did get criticized, the lobbyists would make sure no one would listen to them.

Honestly, I think I've said this before but... lobbyists - legal corruption. The more money you have the louder voice you'll get. Sadly, this is yet another example of that...

So uh... *ended up writing a rant more than anything*
Your thoughts? Do you agree with the criticism or think it's just exgerrating?
Avatar de l’utilisateur
Singidava
 
Message(s) : 1620
Inscription : Ven Juil 23, 2010 6:56 pm
Localisation : Finland
Genre: Féminin
Langues parlées: suomi, English, svenska & 日本語

Re: Member of the Month: November 2012 

Message par Phantom » Dim Déc 16, 2012 1:50 pm

Singidava a écrit :About 2007... Do you know why so many wanted to invest in sub-primes anyways (and therefore causing the bubble)? It's because the rating agencies had rated many of those loans way above their real credibility. Why? Simply because the rating agencies get money for good ratings. That's what they're paid for: investment advice. Some people claim that this conflict of interest caused them to give good ratings to poor investments, instabilising the market as a direct result from their greed.

You say the crisis was goverment's fault because they didn't have enough regulations? In that case, did you know that all these regulations were systematically removed to allow the financial market take bigger risks? And the biggest supporters for this removal have been... no one else than (surprise, surprise) the Wall Street lobbyists. This is another way you could claim that it was the Wall Street greed that caused the crisis. To get the short term gains they encouraged massive risk-taking that instabilised the system even further. (Though Bush is at fault too - it was the Rebpublicans that favored these ideas in actual politics. In the end, you could even claim that it's the regular people who are at fault for allowing the politicians to go so far. After all, in a democracy it's not only a people's *right* to vote and influence to the society but a *responsibility*. Of course, that's unfair as normal people generally know little about these issues but it's up to the people of the country to supervise their leaders. No one else can do it for them. If someone did, it wouldn't be a democracy anymore.)

Another thing that made regulating even harder were the "experts at economy" and the advisors the regulators use in general. Actually, not only the experts and advisors but the people who do the regulating themselves... are none other than the very same people who'd profit the most from having the limits removed - those who have strong connections to the Wall Street. The problem is that you can't be a convincing expert on economy unless you have a massive fortune gained at the Wall Street yourself. And these "top experts" are recycled from a high position to position allowing very little new blood to emerge and criticize the system. Though even if they did get criticized, the lobbyists would make sure no one would listen to them.

Honestly, I think I've said this before but... lobbyists - legal corruption. The more money you have the louder voice you'll get. Sadly, this is yet another example of that...

So uh... *ended up writing a rant more than anything*
Your thoughts? Do you agree with the criticism or think it's just exgerrating?


-The increase of subprime loans investments due to ratings agencies "over"rating investments did not cause the housing market bubble, and is a rather big simplification of the subject. Maybe elsewhere in the world where housing bubbles were occurring (it wasn't just the U.S. at the time) ratings agencies had a harmful effect, but certainly not so much in the U.S. that it was the sole cause of creating the bubble. I'll say it was one of the factors causing the bubble to burst though ;P
The cause of the bubble itself has many attributions to it, but ratings agencies over-evaluating an already risky investment that both consumers and financial institutions were intending to get into no matter what? Nah, I don't believe so. If this were true, there should've been an economic crisis in the late 90's since the demand for home ownership increased significantly since the 1980s.
In 'Murica one of the ways you're considered successful after going to college is owning a nice home. It's to be expected that therefore Americans would take a risk of getting into debt no matter what, just to own a nice home.
Housing prices increased every year since 1940ish to 2004ish by 0.7% [adjusting for inflation of course]. If i did the math right in my head...In that period of time, the price of housing increased by 40 something percent. You can say our "peak" of housing prices, our housing bubble, occurred right near/in the middle of the 2000s...But it was built up for quite some time thanks to the American dream :P

The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 was a great tax reform program that allowed a married couple that made 500,000 bucks, or a single person with 250,000 bucks a year be excluded from a capital gains tax when selling a home, every couple of years when actually eligible to do so.

At the time, in any point of the free market of the United States....Housing was the only way to avoid any type of capital gains tax. And btw, those rates are high, were talking 15% for long-term and over 20% of short-term. Very lucrative for anyone wanting to profit from their assets. Because of this lucrative "incentive", the Act made many people buy very expensive, mortgaged houses, and even a second house/another kind of property considered under the category of housing, instead of investing in "typical" assets such as stocks, bonds, etc.

There's also the Federal Bank of Reserves...After the dot com bubble, The Bank of Reserves charged all manners of interest rates to exactly 1% I believe...because they wanted *encourage* people to enter into loans from banks and try to stimulate the economy in some form or way. That's our monetary policy at work in the United States when people are hit by any type of recession.
This changed in 2005, when the Feds decided to spike the interest rate to somewhere around 5%, to discourage borrowing loans and lowering demand for houses. They didn't increase it to around 5% until the 17th time of changing the interest rate in the time period of 2000-2005.
That worked, but they seemed to forget the fact that increasing the interest rate would force banks to increase the monthly payments of an adjustable mortgage. Big trouble for anyone that just bought their homes in the early to mid 2000s, because there were lots of financial reports of foreclosures in 2005/2006.
At least the Feds achieved their goal...they increased housing supply, dropping housing prices...temporarily. However, they couldn't stop speculation investment in real estate for 2005/2006. The quick buying of housing assets drove housing prices up again to form a higher price peak than pre-2005.
Coupled with the fact that many financial institutions invested in an MBS WHILE leveraging in an attempt to commit to a high-risk, high-reward practice, forced the bubble to occur no matter what in the real estate area.


-Not this again xP, it's Wall Street's nature to be greedy. Everyone's in the stock market game to make profits and money by doing their best to make sure their stocks hit the maximum price point they believe investors deem profitable. Wall Street is no different than a single corporation.
That being said, Bush wasn't in office when most of the deregulation acts were passed. The Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980 allowed similar type banks (such as two investsment banks, or two depository banks) to merge and allowed certain types of banks to set their own interest rates from the governments [which is basically any private entity). This Act was signed and supported by Jimmy Carter, a Democrat. This was an alarming bill being passed because of the merging clauses. This started the whole trend of "financial banks being too big to fail".

The Garn-Saint Germain Depository Institutions Act of 1982 allowed Adjustable-rated mortgages, which basically allowed the interest rate to periodically change as a reflection of the cost to a lender that is borrowing from the credit market. This was hailed as beneficial to a borrower because that reflection of the cost to the lender would force a margin of cost accountability to be accounted for, for both lender, and borrower. If the interest rates rises, it's not good for the borrower, but if the interest rate decreases, it's always good for the borrower. Since such interest rates would be more risky due to its potential volatility, it would allow the lender to spread the interest rate risk to the borrower, ensuring a steady margin of payment. It was much less expensive than a fixed-rate mortgage payment, something that the U.S. picked up from Europe, where adjustable-rated mortgages are(were?) considered the norm.
This was signed by Reagan, a Republican.

Then you have the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999, which was the most controversial banking deregulation bill out of all 3 bills. The bill allowed commercial and investment banks and even insurance companies to merge together, finalizing the concept of "banks being too big to fail", and a bill that many economists believe was the direct cause of the subprime loan crisis being allowed to occur. It essentially repealed a large part of the Glass-Steagall Act, which was meant to prevent something like this from happening else another Great Depression might occur.
The bill was signed by Bill Clinton. A Democrat. [Yes I know the bill was proposed by Republicans before you ask :P, but the bill got passed after both Democrats in the house/senate and republicans compromised by changing the conditions of this particular bill.]

It's these leaders' jobs to figure out how to make the government run better in the way they see fit through legislation. The "regular" people do not have time to be informed with every single detail and step of the legislative process and what their representative is up to because their lives do not revolve around being on the House/Senate floor listening/debating bills all day. By your logic, I should blame the media for not reporting such 'atrocious' things happening in Congress :lol:, because it's their right AND responsibility to monitor Congressmen and inform the people what's going on in Congress. At least it used to be...then news media became a 24/7 thing ;P

-Yes, like I said, there was a controversey/federal investigation of the agency that directly monitors/regulates the behavior of Wall Street for actually not doing its job due to political sensitivity...I still don't remember if it was the Fed Bank or some other agency :P
An agency is supposed to carry out its duties imposed by federal law/executive orders, no matter what political party has control of the executive branch of government...Which is what America had in terms of great government running back in the day when it was first founded. This was broken for the first time recently...just can't point my name on which one it was :X

-I'm not going to acknowledge lobbying for the same thing can be said of entirely other types of industries/economic events. It may be an indirect cause of the actions being taken for Wall Street to maximize profit as much as possible, but it is/was not the direct cause of any economical crisis. Still, their influence is no doubt attributable to the actions taken in Congress a long time ago.

Still, I like your assessment ether way because you're looking at all sources that can be attributable to the financial crisis of 2008...I just hope we're in understanding that it's not JUST one main thing that caused the crisis...Lots of mistakes happened in all sides of government since the 80s.

Now, if you don't mind, I'd like to answer more questions...preferably NOT anything economical/political rated :P

[I'll still answer them but contrary to popular opinion on AAO I'm not too keen on anything related to politics or... ^^]
Phantom
 

Re: Member of the Month: November 2012 

Message par Phantom » Mar Déc 18, 2012 8:50 am

I desire controversial questions, surely there are certain people holding themselves back from asking questions about me and my relationship to AAO ;P
Phantom
 

Re: Member of the Month: November 2012 

Message par ZetaAzuel » Mar Déc 18, 2012 4:21 pm

Well since you asked I'll give you one.

What's your opinion on the death penalty? Do you belive that it is a just punishement? And what are your reasons for supporting it or advocating against it.
Image
Hersh is officially the best for making this awesome Rogan and Parseline Sig!
~Ask Rogan and Djin~

Image
Image Image Image Image ImageImage Image
Rogan Esquin & Djin

TEAM LINK

Storage:
Eclipse the Lunatone
Abdowing the Woobat
Lasir the Zangoose
Voodoo the Wobbufett Lv. 14
Getter-2 the Porygon 2
ImageImage



Zeta x Dio


~~Proud Son of Dypo deLina and Evolina deLuna~~
Avatar de l’utilisateur
ZetaAzuel
 
Message(s) : 1958
Inscription : Sam Oct 01, 2011 5:16 am
Localisation : Somewhere in Space, at Zeta Speed
Genre: Masculin
Langues parlées: English

Re: Member of the Month: November 2012 

Message par energizerspark » Mar Déc 18, 2012 6:15 pm

Hᴀᴠᴇ ʏᴏᴜ ᴇᴠᴇʀ ʀᴇᴀᴅ ᴀɴʏ ᴏғ ᴛʜᴇ Dɪsᴄᴡᴏʀʟᴅ ɴᴏᴠᴇʟs?
Any advice or criticism I may give should be considered with the understanding that I lack skill and experience in pretty much everything.

Currently watching:
Cowboy Bebop

Currently playing:
Fire Emblem (The Blazing Blade)

Currently reading:
Something Like an Autobiography - Akira Kurosawa

Image

the avatar is from Urusei Yatsura in case you were wondering
Avatar de l’utilisateur
energizerspark
 
Message(s) : 4109
Inscription : Jeu Jan 21, 2010 5:41 pm
Localisation : the Whole Sort of General Mish Mash
Genre: Masculin
Langues parlées: English, learning German

Re: Member of the Month: November 2012 

Message par Meph » Mer Déc 19, 2012 2:08 am

Do you believe Disney have changed in a bad way this past decade?
Avatar de l’utilisateur
Meph
 
Message(s) : 13439
Inscription : Lun Nov 10, 2008 10:07 pm
Localisation : Probably Disneyland Paris... or the UK
Genre: Masculin
Langues parlées: English

Re: Member of the Month: November 2012 

Message par Phantom » Mer Déc 19, 2012 3:31 am

@Zeta damn man that wasn't the type of controversial questions I was asking for LOL, but I'll try to answer it later because that's a tough one no matter what.

@Energizer no, but I've heard of it having a really unique/peculiar universe (something about an actual world that's in the form of a disc and sits on top of this cosmo turtle or w/e)

@Meph, I'm not sure what constitutes as bad for you, they acquired Pixar and all of its IPs, and made $1 billion in the box office on the first day Toy Story 3 was released (they made more than any other animated film in history with the Tory Story IP), since Disney was the one handling the marketing this time around. I think that should be enough to tell you whether or not they have changed for the worse/better on a financial front.
Sure there may have been some mistakes made (I heard Cars 2 was considered a flop to many viewers, not sure if there's an actual financial flop though), but overall I think they've been pretty adaptable to the times where users are using the Internet for content consumption.

With the acquiring of Marvel and Lucasarts, they'll be making even more IPs a cash cow success...it's what they are tend to be known for in regards to any IPs they get a hold of.
Phantom
 

Re: Member of the Month: November 2012 

Message par Phantom » Jeu Déc 20, 2012 3:10 am

@Zeta I was going to tailor a long answer, but I decided to keep it short instead:

With more and more prisons having issues of being overcrowded, it's no wonder there is debate about instituting the death penalty nation-wide.
I think the death penalty is good for two things: Population control, and the prevention of the immediate existence of members that clearly show a direct threat to society.

Unfortunately, the death penalty has been shown to have varying results in the U.S. News of killing convicted criminals only later to be found innocent, the lengthy process of actually trying to put someone on death row and have them executed (cept for Texas apparently :P) making it an expensive option to choose...the effectiveness of the penalty as a deterrence to make crime (this is a big one). But life in prison has similar disadvantages.

As it is right now, I'd support it in certain circumstances (mainly use it against proven guilty killers that had malicious intent that's diagnosed crazy against society no matter what).


I'd give a proper, longer answer, for I remember doing both a paper/debate on it, but my mind's not up to the task right now :P
Phantom
 

Re: Member of the Month: November 2012 

Message par Meph » Jeu Déc 20, 2012 5:23 pm

Puddin' a écrit :@Meph, I'm not sure what constitutes as bad for you, they acquired Pixar and all of its IPs, and made $1 billion in the box office on the first day Toy Story 3 was released (they made more than any other animated film in history with the Tory Story IP), since Disney was the one handling the marketing this time around. I think that should be enough to tell you whether or not they have changed for the worse/better on a financial front.
Sure there may have been some mistakes made (I heard Cars 2 was considered a flop to many viewers, not sure if there's an actual financial flop though), but overall I think they've been pretty adaptable to the times where users are using the Internet for content consumption.

With the acquiring of Marvel and Lucasarts, they'll be making even more IPs a cash cow success...it's what they are tend to be known for in regards to any IPs they get a hold of.

Those have been great additions, but what about the end of the Disney Renaissance era and the butchering of the Disney Parks with lower quality service, poor maintenance and the fact that they exclusively make rides based off films (when it used to be only some)?
Avatar de l’utilisateur
Meph
 
Message(s) : 13439
Inscription : Lun Nov 10, 2008 10:07 pm
Localisation : Probably Disneyland Paris... or the UK
Genre: Masculin
Langues parlées: English

PrécédentSuivant

Retour vers Member of the Month

Qui est en ligne ?

Utilisateur(s) parcourant ce forum : Aucun utilisateur inscrit et 1 invité