• Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
    Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.You can use your Twitter or Facebook account to sign up, or register directly.

Disney Buying Fox... good for Disney?

EricsBiscuit

Well-Known Member
Advertisement
Speculation: 5th gate for Fox IPs to compete with Uni's new park(s?)
 

DisneyFan18

Well-Known Member
Avatar is already in the parks, maybe BlueSky properties would be the easiest to incorporate, a Maze Runner attraction could be interesting, and either F4 or X-Men could be done as expansions for Marvel Land DCA?
 

rreading

Premium Member
I hate to go down this road, but can we imagine that a Murdoch would be a solid steward of the Disney legacy? He has his own distinctly different personal legacy, along with a dubious ethos and recently unimpressive film production company.

I understand that this is a large assumption that absorbing Fox could lead to his promotion to CEO, but if these rumors start growing legs, I may feel the need to sell my Disney stock.

Regarding the parks, perhaps he would allow them an autonomous existence as long as they continue to support themselves.
 

larryz

Can't 'Member Anything
Premium Member
Original Poster
Regarding the parks, perhaps he would allow them an autonomous existence as long as they continue to support themselves.
That never seems to last long. And Blackstone is just skulking in the wings waiting for a take-over opportunity... :(
 

rreading

Premium Member
That never seems to last long. And Blackstone is just skulking in the wings waiting for a take-over opportunity... :(
You know, as much as there have been rumors of the parks being sold to outside companies, I really don’t expect that the BOD of TWDC would actually agree to a sale of key division that celebrates the core history of the company. As it’s product diversifies, WDW is the real world representation of Walt’s company. I expect it’s idealistic, but I would hope that the BOD appreciates this.
 

Christian Fronckowiak

Well-Known Member
You know, as much as there have been rumors of the parks being sold to outside companies, I really don’t expect that the BOD of TWDC would actually agree to a sale of key division that celebrates the core history of the company. As it’s product diversifies, WDW is the real world representation of Walt’s company. I expect it’s idealistic, but I would hope that the BOD appreciates this.
Well, they handed the parks over to the former head of Consumer Products, so...
 

doctornick

Well-Known Member
Speculation: 5th gate for Fox IPs to compete with Uni's new park(s?)
Don't see that, but Fox is building two parks internationally (one in Malaysia and one in Dubai). I'm not sure if those are actually going to be owned by Fox or simply licensing their properties. If it's the former, would Disney take them over and run them or spin them off? It would be hard to see Disney converting them to Disney branded parks.
 

Christian Fronckowiak

Well-Known Member
TWDC would be smart to leave them alone to operate as Fox-branded parks. I hope if this goes through, that becomes the theme: TWDC buys Fox and leaves it alone!
 

2351metalcloud

Active Member
What do you all think of one or more parks being built with the following characteristics?:

Situation A:
#1-The one or more parks that are built are associated the Fox name, a name of something that is a subsidiary of Fox, or a different replacement name for Fox that is associated with many of the same things that the current word 'Fox', but this word would not be 'Disney' or have the word 'Disney' in the name
#2-The word 'Disney' is associated very little with things published and shown at the park (it might only appear in little small text put on videos and papers associated with things at the park that have to appear due to legal reasons)
#3-The one or more parks would be more like modern Six Flags than like modern Walt Disney World in terms of theming coherence; guiding ideas behind theming; and the variation in the range of the following characteristics regarding attractions: how thrilling the attractions are, how fast the attractions vehicles move, how scary attractions are, how inappropriate for children visuals and audio of things in attractions are, the use of animatronics and video screens, and how many characters in costumes there are


What would you guys think if one or more parks were built with this situation?:

Situation B:
-Have characteristics #1 & #2
-The one or more parks would be more like half-and-half mixture of modern Universal Studios in Orlando and many modern Six Flags parks in terms of theming coherence; guiding ideas behind theming; and the variation in the range of the following characteristics regarding attractions: how thrilling the attractions are, how fast the attractions vehicles move, how scary attractions are, how inappropriate for children visuals and audio of things in attractions are, the use of animatronics and video screens, and how many characters in costumes there are


What would you guys think if one or more parks were built with this situation?:

Situation C:
-Have characteristics #1 & #2
-The one or more parks would be quite similar to modern Universal Studios in Orlando compared to modern Walt Disney World in terms of theming coherence; guiding ideas behind theming; and the variation in the range of the following characteristics regarding attractions: how thrilling the attractions are, how fast the attractions vehicles move, how scary attractions are, how inappropriate for children visuals and audio of things in attractions are, the use of animatronics and video screens, and how many characters in costumes there are



For each situation I mentioned above what would you guys think about things owned by Disney and/or Fox appearing at parks in the various situations mentioned above if the only things appearing in the parks under the various situations were things that have the following characteristics?:

-They are things previously owned or created by Fox or their subsidiaries prior to being purchased by Disney
-They are things owned or created by Fox or their subsidiaries after the companies are purchased by Disney in the future and that are given little association with the name 'Disney' in the future
-Only certain things associated with Star Wars could appear (Maybe these things might only be things that are set during times (and possibly locations) shown in the original and/or prequel trilogies. Or maybe it might only be only Star Wars things that are not very appropriate for children)
-Only certain things associated with Marvel could appear (Maybe these things might only be things that visitors are to imagine are things are set in the same universe or universes as the setting of some movies made by Fox that feature Marvel mutant characters (such as the X-Men and Deadpool). This might only be for such movies with mutants that are made by Fox before being purchased by Disney, if Fox were to continue making some sort of movies that feature Marvel mutant characters after a purchase. Although, maybe things associated with Marvel that appear at such a park or parks might include more than just those things.)




Also, what do you guys think about the following ideas:

Situation D: Disney or Fox making one or more amusement or thrill parks that have sections which only operate for certain seasons of the year?

Situation E: Disney or Fox making one or more amusement or thrill parks that are entirely closed for part of the year?

Situation F: Disney or Fox making one or more amusement or thrill parks that are entirely closed for part of the year with temporary attractions or temporary aspects to some attractions?

Situation G: Disney or Fox making one or more amusement or thrill parks with one or more sections that only operate seasonally and those sections having temporary attractions or temporary aspects to some attractions?

Situation H: Disney or Fox making one or more amusement or thrill parks with all sections that operate year round that have temporary attractions or temporary aspects to some attractions?

What would you guys think if the one or more parks in Situations D, E, F, G, or H had only certain things associated with things made by Fox; only certain things associated with things made by Disney; or certain things associated both with things made by Fox and things made by Disney?

Having parts of a park or a complete park that is closed for part of the year could make it easier to perform construction on part of a park and change some things of an attraction. Also, it could make it easier to demolish an attraction and build a new attraction.
 
Last edited:

2351metalcloud

Active Member
There's a variety of factors that go into consideration for building things like amusement parks and thrill parks. In the future I might post a more thorough attempt to list things I think would be very important for consideration regarding the creation of the following things which may be stationary or mobile: themed and unthemed amusement parks, themed and unthemed thrill parks, fairs/carnivals, and arcades. But for this post, I will post some factors I find particularly interesting for the future creation of the stationary or mobile things listed above:

-The effect of autonomous vehicles on the future of real estate, willingness to travel, the hotel industry, and housing costs

-The effect of the future of temporary lodging of travelers in buildings not primarily designed for hospitality services, particularly in relation to services like Airbnb and the future of such things on the economics of the hotel industry in general and particularly nearby theme parks and amusement parks

-The effect of the future of people's interest in tv/streaming episodic shows and movies in comparison to the future of people's interest in online video, text, and audio media that are not shows or movies

-The effect on amusement and/or thrill parks of many people being able to experience something somewhat similar to riding on a ride vehicle of an attraction by watching a video online recorded by someone who was on the ride

-The potential feasibility of limiting people viewing and/or recording videos of certain aspects of attractions in amusement or thrill parks they currently own or will create in the future

-The future of people's interest in video games (and 'video* activities' that may not adequately be described as games, but may be experienced using similar hardware and controls as console and pc games and don't quite involve only just watching a video, listening to audio, and/or reading or writing text) that have head-mounted screen displays and have some kind of input devices

-The future of people's interest in video games (and 'activities' as described above) that have conventional screen displays that are not head-mounted displays and have some kind of input devices

(*I can imagine such 'activities' could really also have things that could tie in to experiences related to them that don't have to do with videos such as printed works, audio, board games, and live action experiences (including experiences that could occur at amusement and thrill parks) that have impacts on the experiences of people using such 'activities. I'll just describe them as 'video activities' however as I imagine that is something that many of such 'activities' that couldn't be adequately described as 'games' might mostly or entirely involve the use of.)


A separation to some degree of Disney and Fox or one or more subsidiaries of Fox (that somehow had little association in many people's minds with much of the things that are created or owned by 'Disney') in things they tend to create could allow for interesting differences in characteristics of video games associated with things made by Fox or subsidiaries of Fox compared to video games associated with Disney. A separation in what they tend to create could also allow for similar interesting differences in characteristics of traveling (traveling as in how a traveling fair travels) or stationary attractions, vr experiences, augmented reality experiences, simulator rides, and some kinds of live action experiences featuring visitor participation in some capacity.

Disney is apparently putting a vr experience that has to do with Star Wars in Anaheim soon:
http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-starwars-disney-virtual-reality-20170803-story.html

I imagine if Disney had some sort of rides, experiences, and/or games like that at traveling or stationary arcades or things like fairs/carnivals; they might not want such things with stuff inappropriate for children to be featured much at the same arcade or fair as things that have much less stuff inappropriate for children and are made by Disney and Pixar and maybe some things made by LucasFilm and Marvel Studios. For instance, if at a park, arcade, or fair there was some sort of attraction, experience, or game associated with the new Alita: Battle Angel movie, Alien movies (the ones with the creatures called Xenomorphs) or the Predator movies; Disney might not want people to closely associate those attractions, experiences, or games with some other things made by Disney or Pixar or maybe even with Star Wars and Marvel. (The desire regarding the latter two of Star Wars and Marvel might possibly be due to the fact that many of the movies in those five groups of movies involve space travel and aliens. Additionally, parts of some of the movies, attractions, experiences, and games have things that many would not consider to be appropriate for children).


It seems like there might currently be some limitations in Disney creating or licensing the creation of video games, tv/streaming shows, movies, books, theatrical plays, books, and comic books and having things associated with those works of art appear in Disney parks or at some other sort of live action experiences. One way there is a limitation seems to be theoretically having works of art that feature things that aren't appropriate for children having things related to them in one or more park.

Additionally, it seems like some video games that are popular and make lots of money involve some things that are not quite appropriate for children to see or engage in. Some of these video games also involve communicating with people on the internet which some parents seem to not want children to do without being supervised by them.

I can imagine Disney and/or subsidiaries of Disney (at least from a financial perspective) wanting to be involved in some aspect, (even if it is just in regards to licensing), in the creation of some video games that feature more things that are inappropriate for children and/or communicating with people on the internet than they have been in the past.
 
Last edited:

Robbiem

Well-Known Member
Depending on the final deal and existing contracts I suspect Disney would quietly run the fox parks (or take the licensing fees depending on the actual deal) Most people in those locations wouldn't have any idea that Disney were involved. Thisactually be a good thing as, if they run it right it gives a test ground for concepts and managers to develop without affecting the core brand, kind of how they used the sports centre place they were part owners of in the sixties to train Disneyland managers. I doubt if any other parks would be constructed though unless they resurrect the regional entertainment centre plan as new investment would,likely leverage the biggest theme park brand

Longer term fox IP may be folded into the existing Disney resorts, especially the studios parks in Florida and Paris although as others have said this deal is about movie and tv not the parks
 

seascape

Well-Known Member
Depending on the final deal and existing contracts I suspect Disney would quietly run the fox parks (or take the licensing fees depending on the actual deal) Most people in those locations wouldn't have any idea that Disney were involved. Thisactually be a good thing as, if they run it right it gives a test ground for concepts and managers to develop without affecting the core brand, kind of how they used the sports centre place they were part owners of in the sixties to train Disneyland managers. I doubt if any other parks would be constructed though unless they resurrect the regional entertainment centre plan as new investment would,likely leverage the biggest theme park brand

Longer term fox IP may be folded into the existing Disney resorts, especially the studios parks in Florida and Paris although as others have said this deal is about movie and tv not the parks
The regional park idea is one I thought of. As you said, it would be a great place to try new ideas and test managers. However I think everyone will know Fox is a Division of The Walt Disney Company.
 

doctornick

Well-Known Member
The regional park idea is one I thought of. As you said, it would be a great place to try new ideas and test managers. However I think everyone will know Fox is a Division of The Walt Disney Company.
Not necessarily, since much Fox branded stuff is staying with 21st Century Fox -- Fox network, Fox Sports 1 & 2, Fox News, etc. I am curious how Disney would handle that and they might very well change the names of stuff like the movie and TV studio in order to avoid confusion. The regional Fox Sports networks would almost certainly be changed (probably to some version containing the ESPN branding). FX and FXX are probably distinctive enough games and have some cache that they'll stay (FX also works as a short hand for "effects").
 

seascape

Well-Known Member
Not necessarily, since much Fox branded stuff is staying with 21st Century Fox -- Fox network, Fox Sports 1 & 2, Fox News, etc. I am curious how Disney would handle that and they might very well change the names of stuff like the movie and TV studio in order to avoid confusion. The regional Fox Sports networks would almost certainly be changed (probably to some version containing the ESPN branding). FX and FXX are probably distinctive enough games and have some cache that they'll stay (FX also works as a short hand for "effects").
You need to read the deal. Disney is getting everything in the Fox TV studio and Fox movie studio. The remaining Fox is keeping Fox News, Fox network and Fox Sports 1. Disney gets everyhing else.
 

doctornick

Well-Known Member
You need to read the deal. Disney is getting everything in the Fox TV studio and Fox movie studio. The remaining Fox is keeping Fox News, Fox network and Fox Sports 1. Disney gets everyhing else.
Um, that's what I said. Fox will keep the Fox network, Fox News and FS1/2. Those should remain Fox branded.

I was talking about the stuff that Disney will acquire (Fox regional sportsnets, FX/FXX, Fox movie and TV studios) and what they'll do with the names -- which will likely involve re-branding much of them so as to avoid any confusion.

My point being, I don't think people will be aware about Disney owning 20th Century Fox stuff because that stuff will no longer continue to carry the Fox branding, while the stuff that 21st Century Fox will continue to own will feature the Fox name.

It will end up being interesting as to what happens to the future theme parks. I don't think I've seen them mentioned in any article about the assets that are being transferred, but it would seem logical that they'd go to Disney since TWDC is getting the IPs that the parks feature. As such, I think the park might end up opening with a different name than "20th Century Fox World".
 

seascape

Well-Known Member
Um, that's what I said. Fox will keep the Fox network, Fox News and FS1/2. Those should remain Fox branded.

I was talking about the stuff that Disney will acquire (Fox regional sportsnets, FX/FXX, Fox movie and TV studios) and what they'll do with the names -- which will likely involve re-branding much of them so as to avoid any confusion.

My point being, I don't think people will be aware about Disney owning 20th Century Fox stuff because that stuff will no longer continue to carry the Fox branding, while the stuff that 21st Century Fox will continue to own will feature the Fox name.

It will end up being interesting as to what happens to the future theme parks. I don't think I've seen them mentioned in any article about the assets that are being transferred, but it would seem logical that they'd go to Disney since TWDC is getting the IPs that the parks feature. As such, I think the park might end up opening with a different name than "20th Century Fox World".
I am sorry, I misunderstood you. In any case we both agree the issue of the temeparks is interesting. I would still like them to keep them and move into the regional international themepark business as a training ground for future management and rides.
 

2351metalcloud

Active Member
Given that a company that has cooperated with Fox in the past owns the rights to to make a Mega Man movie and much of what Fox owns is likely to be purchased by Disney, what are some future animated movies and tv shows that you guys think Fox and/or Disney or a cooperative third party should make based on Capcom games?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mega_Man
In 2015, 20th Century Fox and Chernin Entertainment began developing a Mega Man movie with Peter Chernin producing along with Mike Ireland and Ryan Harrigan and David Ready and Michael Finfer will oversee the film.[9][10] In July 2017, Henry Joost and Ariel Schulman were hired to write and direct the film with Masi Oka producing.

I can imagine it might be appealing in some ways to Disney and/or Fox to make some animated or live action movies and/or tv/streaming shows based on video games to compete with the future animated movies and tv/streaming shows that Universal/Dreamworks/Illumination is possibly planning to make based on Nintendo games. Disney already had some Capcom game characters appear in Wreck-It Ralph including some Street Fighter characters. Dr. Wily from Mega Man was apparently planned to be in the movie at one point, but was not in the released movie.

What do you all think about Street Fighter games as the inspiration for one or more live action and/or animated movies or tv/streaming series? Would you all think some things might be better in live action or animation? I previously commented in another thread on the idea of making a series of movies based on Street fighter. I think live action movies based on them could be something that could work out well if done similarly to the MCU movies or maybe even if they are different in some ways possibly like past X-Men movies or in some other ways. However, there might be some difficulties with getting some big fans of the Street Fighter games to be happy with some adaptations, but it might be possible to make them happy and make well-liked and profitable movies. Alternatively, I think it could be possible to make profitable movies even if they are not liked by many of the big fans of the Street Fighter games. However, if many big fans of Street Fighter didn't like the movies, it could create problems with trying to sell future video games that have to do with Street Fighter if much of what's in the future games has a lot to do with the movies. Fox already distributed one past Street Fighter movie (Street Fighter: The Legend of Chun-Li).

Unfortunately, it seems like Fox, Capcom, and Disney might be upset with the popularity so far of the recent video game Marvel vs Capcom: Inifinite. What do you all think of the idea of Disney just buying Capcom completely if it was possible? From what I understand there are some peculiarities regarding a non-Japanese company taking control in some sense of a Japanese company that may make doing that more difficult than one American company buying another American company. What do you all think of Disney instead just purchasing the live action and/or animated movie rights, tv/streaming show rights, theme park rights, in-person VR 'activities' rights (for something like Star Wars: Secrets of the Empire, but that wouldn't take place inside in an 'amusement park'), and/or video game rights for Mega Man and some other Capcom games like Street Fighter?

Disney and/or Fox might be interested in the prospect of the future of e-sports. I can imagine Disney and/or Fox might be interested in the future of Street Fighter and other series of fighting games in regards to this. Additionally, some of what happens in the story in the manga that the movie Alita: Battle Angel is based upon could easily serve as the basis for video games (or even theme park activities and/or in-person VR 'activities') involving competitive fighting and/or a sport in the manga called 'Motorball'. However I don't know what from the manga will appear in the movie, nor do I know if some ideas for video games based on those things may relate to some of the messages of the movie. For example, I don't know if it might be desired for a video game involving fighting to be created if a message of the movie is that competitive fighting is generally bad. However, it could maybe depend more specifically on how the video game and movies were made in regards to the desire for a video game like that.

Apparently Fox actually already owns a subsidiary that seems to be involved in the creation of video games, VR games, and VR 'activities' similar to how LucasFilm does:

http://www.vrfocus.com/2017/05/fox-working-on-multiplayer-alien-vr-videogame/
 
Last edited:

Robbiem

Well-Known Member
It will be interesting to see what happens to the Fox name as part of this - will Murdoch and co retain it for their businesses, or will Disney get the rights to use the fox name and fanfare as well as the movie library etc? It will also be interesting to see who ends up with the movie studios in Australia which 20th century fox built which one housed a theme park based on MGM / uni

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_Studios_Australia
 
Top Bottom