Besides the culture war, having a pre existing successful IP minimizes the risk the the investors. Since a portion of the public is already familiar with the IP, it saves on marketing as it gets free attention and the public is gonna be curious to see how it turned out. The (((money men))) of Hollywood have been taking less and less risks since the turn of the century (even more so after the mortgage crisis).
That's why I believe allowing corporations to "own" and control creative IP the way they do, for excessively long periods of time, is a net cultural negative and gives corporations unearned influence and power in society. It's one of the reasons they can afford to take less risks.
Besides the culture war, having a pre existing successful IP minimizes the risk the the investors. Since a portion of the public is already familiar with the IP, it saves on marketing as it gets free attention and the public is gonna be curious to see how it turned out. The (((money men))) of Hollywood have been taking less and less risks since the turn of the century (even more so after the mortgage crisis).
That's why I believe allowing corporations to "own" and control creative IP the way they do, for excessively long periods of time, is a net cultural negative and gives corporations unearned influence and power in society. It's one of the reasons they can afford to take less risks.
I completely agree. Doubly so if corporation had nothing to do with the creation of an IP. Copyright lasts far, far too long.