{"version": "1.0", "type": "rich", "title": "Just saw one of those knows-enough-to-exhibit-how-much-he-doesn't-know guys saying that really the MCU would backfire because it...", "author_name": "kontextmaschine", "author_url": "https://kontextmaschine.com", "provider_name": "kontextmaschine", "provider_url": "https://kontextmaschine.com", "url": "https://kontextmaschine.com/post/664441351394541568/", "html": "

brazenautomaton:

kontextmaschine:

Just saw one of those knows-enough-to-exhibit-how-much-he-doesn’t-know guys saying that really the MCU would backfire because it would undermine the brand value.

The brand value.

Now think this through, how is that an issue here? Is your concern that by releasing major motion pictures with tie-in merch you are limiting the price you could get by selling the film and licensing rights?

Just saw one of those knows-enough-to-exhibit-how-much-he-doesn’t-know guys saying that really the MCU would backfire because it would undermine the brand value.\u00a0

this is the sentence I have no idea what it means

does he believe the MCU is backfiring, will backfire, or wishes it would?

does he believe that undermining the brand value would cause the backfire, or the backfire would cause the undermining, or are they not related?

what is the event that undermines that he\u2019s talking about, what is the backfire he is talking about?

\n

He thinks that really, it will backfire. Or at least that is what he was saying.

And that “undermining the brand value” would constitute a loss greater than any gain, constituting the backfire

I don’t think that’s correct or even coherent \u2013 that’s what this post was about! I think he didn’t like it as an artistic course and was saying that it was a bad business course as a cover, but “if you realize a film adaptation of this property that will tie it to a particular vision and thus limit its potential value for film adaptation”, incurring a loss greater than any revenue the actual film made you, doesn’t really make sense

"}