And here's another fascinating stat: Dinosaurs is number 18 on the all-time chart that takes into account both domestic and foreign grosses. Know what number 17 is? Try Disney's (NYSE: DIS) Finding Nemo. That's a Pixar brand, you know.

I was really taken by this news because, back in July, I wrote a bearish piece on the domestic prospects for Dinosaurs after I examined early results. As it turns out, News Corp. didn't do so well in these parts. According to this chart, Dinosaurs captured roughly the same amount of money from domestic theaters as its predecessor did in 2006.

News Corp. CEO Rupert Murdoch is definitely happy about how Dinosaurs is doing globally. According to this item over at The Wall Street Journal, the cartoon went beyond expectations. And shareholders will be pleased to note the high hopes Murdoch has for his conglomerate's future celluloid slate. Well, then again, maybe shareholders should be skeptical. No one can predict how any slate of films will do.

And that now brings me back to Disney and Pixar. As everyone knows, Disney spent billions to acquire Pixar some years ago. More recently, the Mouse stepped up to withdraw a ton of money from shareholder coffers to splurge on Marvel Entertainment (NYSE: MVL).

As a Disney shareholder, I do wonder if acquisitions like these are wholly necessary. The argument goes that a Pixar is invaluable because of its track record; no other studio can touch the human resources at work at the company. Yet, News Corp. seems to prove that it is indeed possible for other studios to start animated franchises that utilize software algorithms (granted, News Corp. did buy Blue Sky Studios, the maker of Dinosaurs, back in 1997, but my point is that Pixar isn't the only business capable of making money in this arena). DreamWorks Animation (NYSE: DWA) also is doing rather well for itself.

I've made this counterargument before, but I wanted to note yet another example of evidence that no exec in Hollywood should panic because she's having a bad streak and/or cannot come up with viable concepts. Disney obviously feels that its movie studio can only grow through acquisition. Couldn't Disney have continued to work on its animation department instead of acquiring its way out of the challenges it was facing? When Disney bought Pixar, everyone agreed that the company's animation department needed help. While that's true, I remember thinking at the time that the Mouse should simply try harder. Don't get me wrong -- Pixar is a great asset, I grant you. But I believe that the powers that be in Hollywood are too quick to throw money at problems. The great thing about the Hollywood business model is its intellectual flexibility; as I just mentioned, it is based on concepts. No person or entity has a monopoly on them. Considering the Marvel buy, I wonder if it meant that Disney believed it couldn't generate superhero ideas on its own. If this is the case, then I am puzzled, because, at least to me, such an act is more than conceivable.

Well, that's my opinion, anyway. I know many in the market are satisfied with the acquisition strategy employed by Disney. As for the stocks mentioned here, I wouldn't buy any of them today (obviously Marvel should be forgotten entirely because it is now in the land of arbitrage). It's a Friday, and buying on a Friday is pretty scary when the market may be way overbought. Wait til next week to see if we get any pullbacks before doing some due diligence on this section of the media industry.

Disclosure: I own Disney; positions can change without notice.