ford91exploder
Resident Curmudgeon
I wonder if the Fox deal will lead to a branding change... "DisFox," perhaps, or how about "21st Century Disney," or maybe even "Foxney"...
Bzzt - 'The William Iger Company'
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
CEO Bob Chapek?
- Thread starter mikejs78
- Start date
Bzzt - 'The William Iger Company'
Since when does owning 25% of a company mean you can dictate how it's run? Even if decisions were made by stock percentage vote, Fox would only have 25% of the votes.
"For the next CEO being James Murdoch: 25% vote aye; 75% vote nay."
And despite it being a movie trope, owning 51% of the company still doesn't mean you can do whatever you want with it.
the.dreamfinder
Well-Known Member
Share voting classes? That’s how they, and Sumner Redstone, control their companies. It’s not implausible that the Murdochs could lower the price in exchange for preferred voting shares.
Additionally, the Bass Brothers, MDE’s power base, only owned 6.4% of the company.
Tavernacle12
Well-Known Member
I wonder if the Fox deal will lead to a branding change... "DisFox," perhaps, or how about "21st Century Disney," or maybe even "Foxney"...
The 'Disney' name is far more important than the Fox one for what Disney intends to do. I imagine it will be run like Lucasfilm, where stuff originating with Fox will retain the Fox branding but the company itself will remain Disney.
And again that's all Fox shareholders, not the Murdoch's.
This. The Disney brand has much more attached to it than the 21st Century Fox brand. Ask the average person to name 10 Disney movies vs 10 Fox movies. I suspect they'll have an easy time with Disney but will struggle to even name a few Fox properties. People generally don't associate movie franchises with a particular studio. There are exceptions to this (the Fox fanfaire was intimately associated with Star Wars before Dis bought Lucas). Disney is the exception in that the content is intimately associated with the studio. No way they are giving that up.
I would imagine that there would be a Fox Studios comparable to Marvel's, LucasFilm's, and Pixar's.
There's a whole bunch of Fox properties Disney would like to keep separate from the Disney brand.
This could mean the end of Touchstone used for that very purpose.
There's a whole bunch of Fox properties Disney would like to keep separate from the Disney brand.
This could mean the end of Touchstone used for that very purpose.
Is Touchstone even used anymore?
Tavernacle12
Well-Known Member
Yeah, I imagine the more adult shows originating with Fox (Family Guy, Simpsons, X-Files, etc) would remain under Fox branding, Fox Studios and TV would continue to operate as they do now, in the same manner of Lucasfilm or Pixar. Fox's Marvel unit will be absorbed by Disney fully, though. I generally see exceedingly little Fox IP co-mingling with Disney outside their Marvel properties. I could see Aliens and Planet Of The Apes showing up in the parks at some point, though.
Very rarely.
(Also, for some reason, I brain farted earlier and thought it was Miramax and not Touchstone as their extra label)
Occasionally, when Disney is working with certain producers or production companies. From the Wiki list of Touchstone movies...
It was, for a short while. But, I'm sure Disney doesn't want to talk about the Weinstein era...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miramax#Disney_era_(1993–2010)
They have a special voting class with Fox but won't with Disney.
the.dreamfinder
Well-Known Member
We don’t know that yet.
In the other mergers there was none and that included Job's stock. If anyone could have demanded it, it was him because Disney needed the merger. You can be sure each share wouild have the voting rights or it would need Disney's stockholder approval. Based on what is reported Disney can buy Fox using treasury st
the.dreamfinder
Well-Known Member
That’s true, but this transaction is on the same order of magnitude as CapCities. It will rewrite the power dynamics of the company. Steve/Laurene have always been hands off. Murdochs, not so much.
Always worth reiterating, the Murdochs approach Disney with this deal, not the other way around.
RustySpork
Oscar Mayer Memer
IS IT TOO LATE TO BRING BACK MICHAEL EISNER?
IS IT TOO LATE TO BRING BACK MICHAEL EISNER?
Would Wall Street even let him back in the building?