News Disney and Fox come to terms -- announcement soon; huge IP acquisition

[flynnibus]

I'm curious as to who are the people that are really for this acquisition.

Asset hoarders that see this as expanding the library of things they control to sell and license
Studios that seem it as a means to scale, increase the library, and pipeline
Owners who see more business with 'less' overhead
The distribution side of the house that sees several outlines for their assets

It's simply a consolidation move that expands their toolkit. If you get it at the right price, it is basically buying growth at a discount.

 

[the.dreamfinder]

No, no and no

This is the future of local sports. Team owned local sports nets and streaming services. A deal like Disney/Fox needs to evaluated from a 10-20+ time horizon. That’s where we’re headed. ESPN and FSN are only conduits, they aren’t the real reason why people watch them.

 

[LAKid53]

So, according to several reports, there should be a BIG announcement tomorrow.....

 

[DisneyFan18]

I haven’t seen any mention of the possibility of leveraging a deal with Universal to get the Marvel parks rights back by trading the distribution rights Fox has for several Dreamworks properties, such as How to train your Dragon, Croods, etc. Also, many franchises Fox has could be rebooted into content for their streaming service. Imagine some mid level movies directly to this upcoming service. Percy Jackson, Maze Runner, X Files. There will be as now, only so much room for tent pole franchises, yet many great ones could be utilized for streaming

As a fan of the books, I would like a rebooted animated series based on Percy Jackson!

 

[Grumpy4196]

Forgive me if this has already been asked but does anyone know what Uni's theme park deal is with the Simpsons IP?

 

[MisterPenguin]

From an investment standpoint I always become concerned when a company starts gobbling up competitors to prop up the books. It usually does not bode well for the investors.

Disney is insanely profitable. People fret over some divisions not being as insanely profitable as they'd like with regard to their dividend checks, but, it's still insanely profitable.

Disney doesn't need its books to be propped up.

What Disney needs is expansion in areas they are not already insanely profitable:

• streaming services: controlling interest in Hulu and a huge digital catalogue
  
• serious film making that gets Oscars: Fox movies gets tons of awards (albeit, amidst the stinkers)
  
• access to European and Asian distribution markets: Sky and Star
• regional sports networks: supplementing their national network
• more control of Marvel rights in movies

O Hai Fox!

People on these forums are understandably focused on Parks. This has little to do with Parks.

 

[No Name]

Most Disney movies are more profitable than Oscar-winning movies.

 

[JoeCamel]

they are still shown as Fox and you greatly under value distribution rights.

The contract is "in perpetuity" Universal has stated in the past they have no interest in changing the terms. It is not up to Disney

 

[doctornick]

I'm curious as to who are the people that are really for this acquisition.
Stockholders? Yes eventually I could see the share prices increase.
Disney Park fans? What Fox properties do you want to see or think will be incorporated into the parks?
Disney brand fans? What IPs are you so excited to see under the Disney umbrella and how will they be better?
Streamers? Getting a larger stake in Hulu where Disney can dump content, is this better than them creating their own streaming service?
Sports Fans? More Regional Sports networks being owned by Disney is that a win?
Murdoch fans? or Iger haters?

Obviously anybody who is in favor of diversification of content, has to be against this merger. I really do not relish the idea of Disney having so much say over my TV and broadcast entertainment.

The most excitement I have seen has been from two "nerdy" and related groups...

1. Star Wars fans who are excited to see all of the distribution rights for all the movies in the hands of Disney and hope for high quality versions of the original theatrical releases.

2. MCU/Marvel fans who are excited to see the Fantastic Four and X-Men movie rights be usable by Marvel Studios.

You can count me among the latter, as I really look forward to seeing the Fantastic Four done properly on film and having them -- and their awesome lost of supporting cast and villains -- be available for Marvel Studios to use in the MCU. Phase 4 and beyond gets much more interesting.

Personally, I'm less excited about the X-Men simply because I think they work better on their own than part of a greater universe like the MCU. That said, I am excited to see the Marvel Studios take on those characters since they have a much better gripe on team dynamics than Fox ever has. It would be nice to see some justice for important characters like Cyclops and Storm that have been overshadowed in the constant Professor X/Magneto frenemy stories and overemphasis on Wolverine and Mystique of all people.

One of the ironies is people complaining about how the Fox purchase will lessen competitiveness, but I think Disney has a good argument that it will actually make the streaming market more competitive by either strengthening Hulu or by Disney launching a viable in house competitor to Netflix using their existing properties + Fox's library.

I'm curious as to how the sports stuff will work. Whether the regional networks are Fox Sports Net or ESPN Regional or however they are branded probably won't matter much. But it does offer a lot more content for a sports streaming package (or over the top services to offer to other distributors) from Disney/ESPN. I'm very curious of the Big Ten Network is included in the deal -- I've never seen it definitively stated one way or the other -- because that can be added to ESPN's already significant college sports portfolio to make a sports streaming service even more valuable to college sports fans.

In terms of Disney's market dominance for films, I view it as ultimately a good thing. Disney is so dominant because the company makes really awesome films. People buy lots of tickets for them because they are good. It's not like Disney is immune to stinkers, but overall they maintain a high level of quality control. The more they control the box office, the more incentive there is for rival studios to actually up their game and make better films. I mean, WB and DC had much more popular characters at their disposal than Disney/Marvel but one studio has prospered while the other is mostly on a downward spiral -- and that's all about good film-making and quality control. Pixar and WDFA hopefully will push other animation studios to up their quality as well, though I'm skeptical because aiming low for just kids tends to make money easily.

My biggest fear is that Disney will just shut down the Fox studios rather than spin them off. Hopefully, they keep Searchlight and delve into smaller films -- or at least sell it off to someone who will continue the production. And while Blue Sky is completely superfluous for Disney, it would make a good addition to a company like Paramount or Sony where it would be a vast improvement for their existing animation efforts.

 

[doctornick]

The contract is "in perpetuity" Universal has stated in the past they have no interest in changing the terms. It is not up to Disney

Of course not. Disney can't force anything from Universal. Of course, they might be able to use the resources purchased as part of the Fox deal to theoretically make a deal that benefits Comcast enough to have them give up or modify the theme park rights. I think that's quite unlikely, but who knows.

I do think that if the Uni Marvel deal is ever revisited, it would likely be modified not ended. Something like Uni would get to keep the specific properties it already uses, but Disney could use characters in "families" that are prohibited under the current deal. So maybe Iron Man and Thor and Ant-Man could be used at WDW but Spider-Man, Captain America, Hulk and the X-Men would remain exclusive to Uni. Or Disney could use the Marvel name in their parks. I'm not predicting any of this, but I would think it's much more likely than Uni ever giving up the rights.

 

[seascape]

The contract is "in perpetuity" Universal has stated in the past they have no interest in changing the terms. It is not up to Disney

You are right. Universal gets to keep the Marvel theme park rights in Orlando for as long as they want therm. However it is also a fact that Universal will have to pay for the theme park rights for the Simpsons in both Orlando and Hollyweood. That contract however was not signed underr the financial terms Marvel was under so you can be sure that just like Harry Potter it will have to be renewed. The Simpson' are more important to Universal due to the fact they are in multiple parks than Marvel which soon will only be in Orlando. In any case Disney gets complete confidential information on all of Universals parks thanks to buying Fox.

 

[the.dreamfinder]

“Disney can use the Fox deal to get the Marvel theme park rights back from Universal”

 

[flynnibus]

This is the future of local sports. Team owned local sports nets and streaming services. A deal like Disney/Fox needs to evaluated from a 10-20+ time horizon. That’s where we’re headed. ESPN and FSN are only conduits, they aren’t the real reason why people watch them.

That thinking is like 'UPS is just a bunch of trucks'.. logistics is just a bunch of trucks and drivers. *facepalm*

Companies like ESPN and FoxSports are not just the distribution feed.. They are the PRODUCTION capacity and talent too. Putting on good entertaining sports programming is not just about hiring some camera men and paying a play by play guy. The package of watching sports is not just the game + a camera + a tv station. What we see on Sunday Night Football now vs a football game from 1971 is very very different... and its not just due to technology advances in general electronics. These companies are pushing and expanding the production quality and consumer experience of these TV experiences.

And why do you think every sports team would want to DUPLICATE these efforts and pay all that overhead themselves... vs having someone else PAY THEM to do nothing? Not every team is the Yankees or Ohio State or a big SEC school.

The notion that ESPN or it's peers are just about a TV station people goto to find their team is incredibly naive and oblivious to what they really do.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Why in this thread do you want to relitigate Pandora Land? There are plenty of other threads to decry Avatar-based attractions and to make the point that it will never be popular at a Disney park.

Why do you think I want to relitigate pandoraland?

I don't...I'm just pointing out that avatar isn't really a strong franchise IP...it was a point in time that aligned.

Each sequel - which I'm doubting even get made - will experience a significant drop in appeal and box office...

It's basically transformers. That's my prediction...we can wait and see.

I think it has little further value domestically but perhaps more quality in Far East parks.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

I don't pretend to know what the long term strategy is, but a lot of the counter argument in this thread seems to be centered around the major sports league some how yanking all of their sports off the regional sports networks and distributing them themselves. I just can't see that happening.

You and I might pay for those streaming services, but what are they streaming from? The regional sports channels. Filtering that down to even the college level: Fox Sports distributes the Big Ten Network, ESPN does the same for SEC and eventually ACC. The only one who manages themselves right now is the PAC-12 and they are missing their revenue targets as of July of this year.

Most of the basis for the hand wringing is this overwhelming narrative that Disney is not competent in streaming market. That might be true (history would provide evidence in this regard). Or perhaps they are slowly positioning themselves to be in a position of influence with multiple avenues into the streaming market when they are ready to move.

I could be wrong, but I'm just looking at this from the perspective as a casual consumer.

EDIT: This isn't a criticism or defense of this deal. Just a response to a post.

I think the leagues going direct is entirely tied to cable cutting...

When the baby boomers die off and the up and coming generation have zero tolerance for bundled broadcast services...which is coming sooner than we think...the rsns die with them.

Then is up to leagues to market and generate revenue themselves...some won't survive.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

I was talking about the rumored Marvel land for Anaheim. I'm sure that during the design phase WDI was instructed to concentrate on adding themes and references to only things within the MCU. Disney has always been a bit careful about promoting other studio properties unless they can profit of them. If the purchase happens then they can pretty much add X-men references and have meet and greets and not worry about promoting other studios properties.
It will also be interesting to see how Disney handles the promotional stuff for the upcoming X-men movies if they own the Fox studio. Fox had a few X-men related movies coming for 2018/2019.

Gotcha...

Redoing the xmen film series would be a plus...I don't like their choices at all. Cyclops and storm are weak...I don't need anymore J-Lau...and Sansa as Jean Grey is a non starter for me.

 

[No Name]

Logan is rated R, is very serious, has no porg-like characters, and has a certain story element that I'd be shocked to see in the MCU. Oh, and doesn't have Wolverine in the title. Essentially it was made to be a successful movie rather than a merchandising machine. Not saying one is better or worse, but that is a key difference between Fox and Disney, and a reason I don't see the two businesses meshing well.

 

[larryz]

Here's a quiz for you: what's the name of 1 character in avatar?

And how many people that have seen it can answer that question?

Doctor...uhh... Corporal... uhhh... Jake. Jake somebody...

 

[the.dreamfinder]

Logan is rated R, is very serious, has no porg-like characters, and has a certain story element that I'd be shocked to see in the MCU. Oh, and doesn't have Wolverine in the title. Essentially it was made to be a successful movie rather than a merchandising machine. Not saying one is better or worse, but that is a key difference between Fox and Disney, and a reason I don't see the two businesses meshing well.

Director James Mangold’s go to line during press for that film was, “I didn’t want to have to sell Happy Meals.”

That being said, the Netflix Marvel shows are all TV-MA. Disney ABC has a show called SMILF on Showtime. They don’t need to buy an adult cable channel or an adult movie studio to do these things. They did it before with Touchstone and Miramax and they still do it on TV.

 

[PizzaPlanet]

It's basically transformers. That's my prediction...we can wait and see.

Except Avatar was actually a good movie, can't say that about any of the Transformers films.