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

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Absolutely it could, however, this deal will at worst delay it. By now having even more new characters and more importantly new areas to expand the MCU and catch the attention of differing audiences. The fact they were able to do this, and hopefully implement it before the "tried and true" "A" listers are gone, is a huge benefit. They can literally write their own new ticket for a while.

I just can't discount the possibility of a shift away from superhero appeal...

The 80's should have lead to an era of big screen hero movies...and instead they took most of the 90's off...who knows where moods change?

It it may not be up to Disney...the generations tied to mcu now could outgrow and not transfer the appeal...

Even good movies may not continue to be the cash cows they are. And remember...this is disney...

If they slip, they pull the plug unless your Johnny depp and you have pictures of iger with a goat.

 

[larryz]

They spoke Deutch and wore lederhosen though....isn't that like...the same?

Only if you close your eyes and hum real loud so you can't hear anyone talking.

 

[brb1006]

Cartoon Brew article about Blue Sky after the Disney-Fox Deal
http://www.cartoonbrew.com/business...dios-fox-animation-continue-exist-155428.html

 

[Phicinfan]

I just can't discount the possibility of a shift away from superhero appeal...

The 80's should have lead to an era of big screen hero movies...and instead they took most of the 90's off...who knows where moods change?

It it may not be up to Disney...the generations tied to mcu now could outgrow and not transfer the appeal...

Even good movies may not continue to be the cash cows they are. And remember...this is disney...

If they slip, they pull the plug unless your Johnny depp and you have pictures of iger with a goat.

And if you tape a rocket to a cow, you may see a flying cow.

My point is, if they kept rolling out the same characters like DC did with multiple Batmans, and multiple Supermans, and don't add in new protagonists, you get stale. That would be a lead cause to lose interest in Superhero movies.

That being said though, look at what really bad superhero movies like the DC versions did, and you see the interest is still high.

Add in to the really solid base MCU and Marvel and Disney has formed, and then fling it out with all the added targets to use, and you have a very sustainable market to use.

 

[brb1006]

Ice Age: Continental Drift and Ice Age: Collision Course director Michael Thurmeier reflected on the uncertain mood at Blue Sky with this tweet:

 

[networkpro]

Ice Age: Continental Drift and Ice Age: Collision Course director Michael Thurmeier reflected on the uncertain mood at Blue Sky with this tweet:

 

[mikejs78]

The 80's should have lead to an era of big screen hero movies...and instead they took most of the 90's off...who knows where moods change?

I guess that 90s Batman franchise doesn't count...

 

[MisterPenguin]

Cartoon Brew article about Blue Sky after the Disney-Fox Deal
http://www.cartoonbrew.com/business...dios-fox-animation-continue-exist-155428.html

I can't understand why everyone says that Disney will surely get rid of the two animation studios they just picked up. The two that they do have make just two animated movies a year. Why not more? Why sell them off to other companies to be competition?

 

[BrianLo]

I can't understand why everyone says that Disney will surely get rid of the two animation studios they just picked up. The two that they do have make just two animated movies a year. Why not more? Why sell them off to other companies to be competition?

Recent history: Both of those two animated studios had additional branches in Orlando and Vancouver that Disney chose to close, instead of increasing their annual film output.

Maybe the resources will be reshuffled, but it seems disconnected for them to keep a studio in Connecticut - far flung from their story trust. If Disney truly wants more films a year, wouldn't they be better off releasing them under the 'Pixar' or 'WDAS' labels? They can sell movies on those labels, no one really goes to see a Blue Sky animated pic because of the studio. Dreamworks had power in the label, Illuminations has power in their label.

It's why I surmise they utilize them for their streaming platform or glean more value out of them by selling them off. I just think Blue Sky does not organically fit the same way it would literally if any other major studio gobbled Fox up. Disney really doesn't need a third animated label. At the very, very minimum 'Blue Sky' in name only does not survive, even though it kind of has a nice hidden Parks and Resorts project double-entendre.

This is all speculation obviously, but at least that's where I'm coming from.

 

[Next Big Thing]

Recent history: Both of those two animated studios had additional branches in Orlando and Vancouver that Disney chose to close, instead of increasing their annual film output.

Maybe the resources will be reshuffled, but it seems disconnected for them to keep a studio in Connecticut - far flung from their story trust. If Disney truly wants more films a year, wouldn't they be better off releasing them under the 'Pixar' or 'WDAS' labels? They can sell movies on those labels, no one really goes to see a Blue Sky animated pic because of the studio. Dreamworks had power in the label, Illuminations has power in their label.

It's why I surmise they utilize them for their streaming platform or glean more value out of them by selling them off. I just think Blue Sky does not organically fit the same way it would literally if any other major studio gobbled Fox up. Disney really doesn't need a third animated label.

This is all speculation obviously, but at least that's where I'm coming from.

The quality of Fox's animated films are far below WDAS and Pixar, which would only hurt the brand.

 

[BrianLo]

The quality of Fox's animated films are far below WDAS and Pixar, which would only hurt the brand.

Yes exactly! If they are going to go through the efforts to bring them into the story trust fold - Disney just won't let them operate truly independently from Pixar/WDAS, it's not their M.O. - why even bother keeping them in Connecticut.

 

[MisterPenguin]

The quality of Fox's animated films are far below WDAS and Pixar, which would only hurt the brand.

Well, until Disney picked up Pixar and Lasseter reinvigorated the Disney Animated Studio, DAS was operating at a level below Disney standards.

 

[Captain Neo]

Nobody questioned Pixar or Lucas...marvel a little bit but it was cheap...this is 25 times the price without the face recognition...this is as much about hulu as anything.

Disney thinks it will be the first streaming "cable" provider...that much is clear.

Wdw1974 questioned every single one of the acquisitions talking about how stupid Bob Iger was for overpaying, how he didn't even know that marvels best character film rights were at other studios, how buying Pixar was an admission that Disney was a failure, etc. Etc. And every single time Bob Iger proved him and the naysayers wrong and the acquisition ended up making Disney better and the properties they purchased better.

 

[LAKid53]

The blame for this has to lay with the audience. A studio is going to put out films that they think will make them money. Blade Runner 2049 comes out to rave critical and audience reviews yet its a huge bomb that will most likely cause the studio to go under. You know what that means, other studios are less likely to produce a similar movie. If the audience wants Star Wars and Marvel movies then i cant blame Disney for giving it to them.

I agree. Studios have been doing this since the 1950s - when they were forced to divest themselves of their theatres. Unless you're a Steven Spielberg or Martin Scorsese, you're going to have a hard time getting another Citizen Kane or Gentlemen's Agreement or all those marvelous films from 1939 greenlighted.

Btw, the original Blade Runner wasn't that much of a box office success either.....

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Wdw1974 questioned every single one of the acquisitions talking about how stupid Bob Iger was for overpaying, how he didn't even know that marvels best character film rights were at other studios, how buying Pixar was an admission that Disney was a failure, etc. Etc. And every single time Bob Iger proved him and the naysayers wrong and the acquisition ended up making Disney better and the properties they purchased better.

Eventually the dice go cold.

I'm not predicting failure here...it's a completely different kind of acquisition than those prior however.

The previous ones were a rather small investment (by today's Wall Street standards) that's was just about Ip.

This is ip but moreso about launching a streaming platform based "Disneyvision" direct pay service.

They basically are trying to reinvent cable bundling and sell it to those that have become adverse to bundling in some form.

It's a bigger ravine to jump. And a lot more money and bringing the fox (murdochs...pun intended) into their henhouse.

 

[LAKid53]

Well, until Disney picked up Pixar and Lasseter reinvigorated the Disney Animated Studio, DAS was operating at a level below Disney standards.

Very true. Didn't help Disney when Don Bluth left he took some of Disney's best animators with him. Even Roy, Jr., couldn't turn Disney Animation around. Until the 2nd Golden Age or Renaissance from 1989 to 1999. Things got pretty bad after that, again. Including the partnership with Pixar. Until 2006, when Disney bought Pixar and brought Lasseter in initially as chief creative officer over both Disney Animation and Pixar.

 

[Nubs70]

Another benefit of the merger...

SYNERGIES!!!!!

That's jobs. About 5,000 - 10,000 positions in question.

Targeting about $2B

 

[seascape]

Another benefit of the merger...

SYNERGIES!!!!!

That's jobs. About 5,000 - 10,000 positions in question.

Targeting about $2B

Listening to the confrence calls, I think a lot of the savings will come from refinancing Fox debt which is paying in the high 5's in interest while Disney is paying between 2 and 3 percent and Sky is in the 3's. As for the number of jobs, I think it will be some high paid management positions because there is no need for duplicate managers but in the positions that actually do the work, animators, writers, etc... can't be reduced on a per movie basis. Additionally it sounds like there will be more production for online services not less. The savings will come from the combined theatrical movie distribution and production costs since Disney will not be buying Fox Studios property and sound stages. Therefore production will probably move to Atlanata. Less jobs in Califfornia but more in Georgia. Lower costs and more profits.

 

[the.dreamfinder]

Recent history: Both of those two animated studios had additional branches in Orlando and Vancouver that Disney chose to close, instead of increasing their annual film output.

Maybe the resources will be reshuffled, but it seems disconnected for them to keep a studio in Connecticut - far flung from their story trust. If Disney truly wants more films a year, wouldn't they be better off releasing them under the 'Pixar' or 'WDAS' labels? They can sell movies on those labels, no one really goes to see a Blue Sky animated pic because of the studio. Dreamworks had power in the label, Illuminations has power in their label.

It's why I surmise they utilize them for their streaming platform or glean more value out of them by selling them off. I just think Blue Sky does not organically fit the same way it would literally if any other major studio gobbled Fox up. Disney really doesn't need a third animated label. At the very, very minimum 'Blue Sky' in name only does not survive, even though it kind of has a nice hidden Parks and Resorts project double-entendre.

This is all speculation obviously, but at least that's where I'm coming from.

The quality of Fox's animated films are far below WDAS and Pixar, which would only hurt the brand.

BlueSky is more valuable to someone else than it would be to Disney. The studio alone would likely fetch $500 million and probably even more with the IP, which is nowhere near as valuable as the Disney or Pixar IP. Just thinking about it, there could be multiple suitors; Paramount, Lionsgate, MGM, Skydance, Amazon, and Netflix as interested parties.

 

[brb1006]

Recent history: Both of those two animated studios had additional branches in Orlando and Vancouver that Disney chose to close, instead of increasing their annual film output.

Maybe the resources will be reshuffled, but it seems disconnected for them to keep a studio in Connecticut - far flung from their story trust. If Disney truly wants more films a year, wouldn't they be better off releasing them under the 'Pixar' or 'WDAS' labels? They can sell movies on those labels, no one really goes to see a Blue Sky animated pic because of the studio. Dreamworks had power in the label, Illuminations has power in their label.

It's why I surmise they utilize them for their streaming platform or glean more value out of them by selling them off. I just think Blue Sky does not organically fit the same way it would literally if any other major studio gobbled Fox up. Disney really doesn't need a third animated label. At the very, very minimum 'Blue Sky' in name only does not survive, even though it kind of has a nice hidden Parks and Resorts project double-entendre.

This is all speculation obviously, but at least that's where I'm coming from.

Which might be a shame since Blue Sky has good potential outside of the Ice Age sequels unfortunately