A movie studio release slate is generally more than 2-3 films a year. That is few and far between.
Not when you see how few films Disney releases now under its own banner. But you can make this look anyway that you want. I could go back to the late 80s and early 90s when between FA and Touchstone, Disney was raking in the money solely on its own product, much of it original.
I wasn't changing the finish line, but more clearly illustrating why Disney needed purchases like Lucasfilm and Marvel - because there are only so many animated classics they can bastardize for live action, and only so many theme park attractions they can base pictures on.
That's simplifying things, though. You're having two options: 1.) Disney puts out a few films based on its animated classics and park attractions; and 2.) Lucas and Marvel solve the problem.
You do realize that there is another option (likely multiple), right? Like cultivating an atmosphere where filmmakers want to be and try telling original stories. It doesn't have to be simply the either/or/both that you provided above. Iger has decided that is what Disney will be. But it absolutely doesn't have to!
I'm not arguing that POTC doesn't do very well, but as far as franchises go - it's largely all they've got, and it's getting long in the tooth. It also is pretty much centered around Johnny Depp - a very precarious thing for a franchise to be so largely dependent on one star.
Well, Depp is quite a talented guy. He made Jack Sparrow into an iconic role that people will be watching decades from now. I also think that having a long break between a lousy fourth outing and the fifth might cleanse the palates of moviegoers a bit.
And only one franchise? ARe you forgetting Disney is actually (insanely) doing a third Tron film (because two lousy films 30-plus years apart wasn't enough!)
Well, I thought the same about Iron Man...and Guardians...etc. We have no idea, though - fatigue definitely hasn't set in, yet. But it's entirely possible.
When Marvel starts doing 2-3 films a year, every year (not including Sony's Spidey films and FOX's X-Men and anything DC has coming), I'm willing to bet that comic hero fatigue will most definitely set in.
The bottom line really is - if Disney were solely relying on it's "in house" output, it would be far, far less financially well-off than it is with Lucasfilm and Marvel. They likely will end the decade as the #1 movie studio on the backs of those purchases, making them brilliantly smart choices to add to the portfolio, and makes them a perfect match for Disney and their merchandising prowess. I just can't see how this can be interpreted as harming "the BRAND" - as it's certainly strengthening and expanding the audience for all things Disney past "Princesses and Pirates".
I can't argue the financial merits right now. I can argue the further dilution of the Disney BRAND by adding so much non-Disney product, but I'm sorta tired of the whole thing. How many hours before breathless reports come in on Age of Ultron?