-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Disney buys Fox for $52 Billion
- Thread starter Disney Irish
- Start date
nevol
Well-Known Member
I don't think that's likely at all. This deal was all about the expansion of properties. They wont be rebranded as Disney IP. I think that where other deals, namely Pixar and Lucasfilm, were about bringing other properties with similar audiences and which already had relationships with Disney into the Disney family rather than leaving them out as competitors, strengthening Disney's brand image, relevance, and existing assets, this is all about the tertiary distribution and media wings. Save for some of the film properties, this is moreso in line with the expansion of the company we saw with ESPN and ABC, things that don't really have anything to do with Disney but extend its reach in the entertainment industry to as wide an audience as possible. This isn't about parks, but about making a competitive streaming service to Netflix, and having more market share of US box office (would be near/surpass 50% of theatrical). The weirdest part of this deal is that the strategy of making their own streaming service and now owning a majority stake of Hulu is redundant. What is to happen with Hulu? What properties will go on Disney's service? Disney isn't acquiring the Fox network or Fox Sports, just stuff produced by 20th and 21st century fox and all of those channels (fx, etc). But had the channels been acquired as well, there would be no competitor to ESPN and there would be one less competing entertainment empire to Disney/ABC.
Curious Constance
Well-Known Member
He's a giver, isn't he?
Curious Constance
Well-Known Member
At this point, what would be the difference who owns Disney parks? Fox, Comcast, Disney? One of them gives us the feels, but that's the only difference at this point between those companies. Disney is a corporate monster, and it will never be any resemblance of what it once was. It doesn't matter if Iger stays for ten years longer or is replaced next month after a shocking expose reveals he makes the women he works with dress like wild animals for his pleasure. I'm not broken as a result, it is what it is, but I care a whole lot less about Disney as a result. Ten or twenty years down the line the parks will probably be unrecognizable.
BigThunder26
Active Member
I've heard some talk of Disney using The Simpsons as a sort of bargaining chip, so that they can finally start to really put Marvel stuff in Disney World.
I've also heard someone ask if this means that Hank Hill is a Disney princess now, or if he can be in Kingdom Hearts. I agree wholeheartedly with both of these.
"That Riku ain't right, I tell you hwat."
I've also heard someone ask if this means that Hank Hill is a Disney princess now, or if he can be in Kingdom Hearts. I agree wholeheartedly with both of these.
"That Riku ain't right, I tell you hwat."
Travel Junkie
Well-Known Member
I don't see Disney selling off properties just because they don't fit the Disney image. You'd be surprised to find out how many brands that supposedly serve different demo's are actually under the same umbrella. It's all about diversification. Disney wants it all and it's difficult to call it a family brand anymore. It is only one segment what they do anymore.
The deal makes sense for Disney in a number of ways, virtually none of them theme parks related. The lucrative regional sports networks (including Fox Sports West and Prime Ticket) are great for ESPN, which will likely be rebranded as such and also deal a blow to FS1. The film and TV catalog along with Hulu give Disney considerable clout in the new era of streaming. Disney is an absolute juggernaut.
The deal makes sense for Disney in a number of ways, virtually none of them theme parks related. The lucrative regional sports networks (including Fox Sports West and Prime Ticket) are great for ESPN, which will likely be rebranded as such and also deal a blow to FS1. The film and TV catalog along with Hulu give Disney considerable clout in the new era of streaming. Disney is an absolute juggernaut.
NobodyElse
Well-Known Member
Curious Constance
Well-Known Member
Why is he acting like he created rich, diverse entertainment experiences? These experiences already existed. What difference does it make to the average person who owns them?
mickEblu
Well-Known Member
I would love it if Disney demo’d DTD and expanded the parks. It’s just generic merch and mediocre restaurants. With that said. It does act as a nice buffer between the parks and hotels. I’m not worried about the parks being effected by this purchase either. Outside of maybe some X men presence in Marvel land which doesn’t bother me. Most of FOXs animated films are either irrelevant or on par with Disney’s worst animated films so I don’t see anything that actually has a shot of making it into the parks.
mharrington
Well-Known Member
I sure hope not!
Kram Sacul
Well-Known Member
- In the Parks
- Yes
They would also have Star Trek. Sigh.
Darkbeer1
Well-Known Member
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opin...d-cutting-20171214-story.html#nt=oft12aH-1gp4
>>Ultimately, the question for consumers will be how much video is enough. None of the streaming services has tried to replicate the huge bundles sold by pay TV, at least not yet. Instead, they’ve aimed at viewers who are happy spending less money on fewer channels.
Consumers often sign up for multiple streaming services today, assembling the personalized bundles that pay-TV providers don’t offer (largely because the networks that supply the channels won’t let them). Maybe the new Disney service will simply persuade cord cutters and other viewers to open their wallets wider and add another service to the mix.
That’s one of the main reasons Disney is spending a fortune on Fox’s programming assets — to make sure its new streaming service will be compelling enough to make the cut. In doing so, however, it’s forcing more consumers to answer a tough question that pay-TV services and their giant bundles of channels don’t pose: What shows in the increasingly fragmented TV universe can they live without?<<
>>Ultimately, the question for consumers will be how much video is enough. None of the streaming services has tried to replicate the huge bundles sold by pay TV, at least not yet. Instead, they’ve aimed at viewers who are happy spending less money on fewer channels.
Consumers often sign up for multiple streaming services today, assembling the personalized bundles that pay-TV providers don’t offer (largely because the networks that supply the channels won’t let them). Maybe the new Disney service will simply persuade cord cutters and other viewers to open their wallets wider and add another service to the mix.
That’s one of the main reasons Disney is spending a fortune on Fox’s programming assets — to make sure its new streaming service will be compelling enough to make the cut. In doing so, however, it’s forcing more consumers to answer a tough question that pay-TV services and their giant bundles of channels don’t pose: What shows in the increasingly fragmented TV universe can they live without?<<
Darkbeer1
Well-Known Member
But folks, Don't count your chickens just yet, the deal could be cancelled or modified.
http://www.latimes.com/business/hol...y-fox-regulatory-concerns-20171214-story.html
>>Walt Disney Co.’s proposed takeover of 21st Century Fox is likely to raise thorny regulatory concerns at a time when the Justice Department has been putting media mergers under the microscope.
Disney’s $52.4-billion stock deal to acquire key parts of Fox would create an unprecedented entertainment colossus and could trigger antitrust concerns because it would erase one of the six major Hollywood studios and would fortify Disney’s dominance in sports broadcasting.
Indeed, the companies’ agreement calls for Disney to pay a lofty $2.5-billion breakup fee to 21st Century Fox if the merger is blocked by federal regulators on grounds “relating to antitrust laws or communications laws.”<<
>>“Will it reduce options for consumers or increase prices?” Del Vecchio said. “Will it give Disney undue power? Power not only in terms of consumer choices and prices, but power for the back-end of their business — theater owners etc.”
The deal quickly drew opposition from some critics, including the Writers Guild of America West, the union that represents writers of movies, TV and other media.
“The antitrust concerns raised by this deal are obvious and significant” by “substantially increasing the market power of a combined Disney-Fox corporation,” the union said. The union added that it would “work to ensure our nation’s antitrust laws are enforced.”<<
http://www.latimes.com/business/hol...y-fox-regulatory-concerns-20171214-story.html
>>Walt Disney Co.’s proposed takeover of 21st Century Fox is likely to raise thorny regulatory concerns at a time when the Justice Department has been putting media mergers under the microscope.
Disney’s $52.4-billion stock deal to acquire key parts of Fox would create an unprecedented entertainment colossus and could trigger antitrust concerns because it would erase one of the six major Hollywood studios and would fortify Disney’s dominance in sports broadcasting.
Indeed, the companies’ agreement calls for Disney to pay a lofty $2.5-billion breakup fee to 21st Century Fox if the merger is blocked by federal regulators on grounds “relating to antitrust laws or communications laws.”<<
>>“Will it reduce options for consumers or increase prices?” Del Vecchio said. “Will it give Disney undue power? Power not only in terms of consumer choices and prices, but power for the back-end of their business — theater owners etc.”
The deal quickly drew opposition from some critics, including the Writers Guild of America West, the union that represents writers of movies, TV and other media.
“The antitrust concerns raised by this deal are obvious and significant” by “substantially increasing the market power of a combined Disney-Fox corporation,” the union said. The union added that it would “work to ensure our nation’s antitrust laws are enforced.”<<
I kind of doubt it'll get much DOJ hold up, there isn't much Antitrust here. With more and more content being created by others like Netflix and Amazon and even Youtube, this isn't going to get much of a look. Unlike with the AT&T and Time/Warner deal (which by the way the DOJ will lose in court) where a content provider (Time/Warner) is being acquired by one of the same cable companies that offers that content. Meaning that the cable company would have control over the same content it buys and sells to others.
Suspirian
Well-Known Member
Only when I get my American Horror Story: Coven themed Haunted Mansion overlay
Disney Analyst
Well-Known Member
I don’t know who else listened to both investor calls yesterday. But I did.
Basically Disney wants to release 3 online streaming services. They believe people want more control over what they watch and pay for. Bob wants to offer these for a significantly lower cost then most. There will be a sports package that is more supplementary to people who already have ESPN, a family service for Disney, marvel, Star Wars, and then they want to use Hulu for mature entertainment (think FX shows, Simpson’s, Deadpool may have to go on this one etc.)
Basically Disney wants to release 3 online streaming services. They believe people want more control over what they watch and pay for. Bob wants to offer these for a significantly lower cost then most. There will be a sports package that is more supplementary to people who already have ESPN, a family service for Disney, marvel, Star Wars, and then they want to use Hulu for mature entertainment (think FX shows, Simpson’s, Deadpool may have to go on this one etc.)
Hatbox Ghostbuster
Well-Known Member
I could be guessing, but to him there's probably still some panache that goes along with the "Disney" brand name. People might have heard about something and gone "huh, I'm not sure about that", but now they'll hear "its OK, it's Disney!"
But in principle, you're right. There is no difference to the average person. It has been and always will be all about lining his wallet with our money.
Darkbeer1
Well-Known Member
Here is what most people will think be the biggest anti-trust issue, and one that was added late to the deal.
www.ocregister.com/2017/12/14/how-the-disney-fox-deal-affects-local-sports-coverage/
>>ESPN Plus, the company’s first major video streaming initiative, will come in the spring of 2018. With more than half of the 80-some MLB, NBA and NHL regional deals on the Fox channels, that allows for more live sports streaming options.
There are some 5,500 games airing live on the 22 nets to date per year, which control 17 NBA teams, 15 MLB teams and 12 NHL teams. That does not include WNBA, MLS or other college and high school properties.
The Fox RSNs are reportedly valued at $20 billion – almost 40 percent of the total cost of the entire Disney-Fox transaction.<<
That is a big apple, and if the deal falls through, Murdoch's get the big cancellation fee, plus can go shopping again with other suitors, such as Comcast, with the knowledge what they can't do to prevent anti-trust issues in the new deal.
www.ocregister.com/2017/12/14/how-the-disney-fox-deal-affects-local-sports-coverage/
>>ESPN Plus, the company’s first major video streaming initiative, will come in the spring of 2018. With more than half of the 80-some MLB, NBA and NHL regional deals on the Fox channels, that allows for more live sports streaming options.
There are some 5,500 games airing live on the 22 nets to date per year, which control 17 NBA teams, 15 MLB teams and 12 NHL teams. That does not include WNBA, MLS or other college and high school properties.
The Fox RSNs are reportedly valued at $20 billion – almost 40 percent of the total cost of the entire Disney-Fox transaction.<<
That is a big apple, and if the deal falls through, Murdoch's get the big cancellation fee, plus can go shopping again with other suitors, such as Comcast, with the knowledge what they can't do to prevent anti-trust issues in the new deal.
