Umm 21st Century Fox Purchase?

[MichRX7]

Just get FF. They can keep the rest.

No, no, no... they need the TV stuff as well. Who doesn't think the inside of the Stitch/Alien/Mission theatre in Tomorrowland already looked like it was ready for an overlay to be the inside of the Jupiter 2? Danger Will Robinson...

 

[bhg469]

Just get FF. They can keep the rest.

Im not sure if you want Disney to get F&F to make it worse than it is or to Bring Disney crashing down...

 

[mikejs78]

If this deal goes through, this is the end of the “Walt Disney” part of the Walt Disney Company.

How is it any different than Touchstone/Hollywood Pictures/Mirimax of the Eisner era?

 

[mikejs78]

TBH, I suspect the broadcast and satellite assets are what interests Disney most in this deal.

Effectively, Disney becomes Comcast.

The article said that the broadcast network and affiliates weren't part of the deal.

 

[mikejs78]

If they are even on talks for this I think this means Disney is getting rid of espn.

It would be a good time to get out with the sports bubble about to burst.

That would be smart of them. Focus on creative content...

 

[the.dreamfinder]

How is it any different than Touchstone/Hollywood Pictures/Mirimax of the Eisner era?

Under the merged company, Disney won’t be the heart of the company. It will just be one of many assets.
Disney doesn’t need to buy another studio to make adult films, btw.

The article said that the broadcast network and affiliates weren't part of the deal.

Domestic, yes. International, no.
Sky and Star are huge assets. They include ISPs, pay tv providers, cable channels and movie studios like Fox Star. Their audience is probably 2 billion+ people across the EU and South and Southeast Asia.

 

[TROR]

How is it any different than Touchstone/Hollywood Pictures/Mirimax of the Eisner era?

Disney owned those studios but they were separated from Disney. The goal was not to mix Disney and these smaller studios. The goal of owning Marvel, Lucasfilm, Pixar, Henson, and potentially 20th Century is to mix them all together.

 

[peter11435]

Disney owned those studios but they were separated from Disney. The goal was not to mix Disney and these smaller studios. The goal of owning Marvel, Lucasfilm, Pixar, Henson, and potentially 20th Century is to mix them all together.

I don't think we can speculate about how they would integrate 20th century fox yet..

 

[mikejs78]

Disney owned those studios but they were separated from Disney. The goal was not to mix Disney and these smaller studios. The goal of owning Marvel, Lucasfilm, Pixar, Henson, and potentially 20th Century is to mix them all together.

Touchstone and Hollywood Pictures were certainly not separated from Disney, although Mirimax was..In fact, I believe Who Framed Roger Rabbit was a Touchstone IP that originally started as a Disney IP, but moved to Touchstone. Roger Rabbit, The Rocketeer, and Sister Act were all Touchstone Pictures movies that got attention at the theme parks, specifically at what was then Disney-MGM Studios.

In fact, having these studios was a big part of Eisner's strategy to diversify Disney's filmmaking. He ran it all. Don't forget, Disney/Touchstone released movies like Good Morning Vietnam and Pretty Woman.

 

[mikejs78]

Under the merged company, Disney won’t be the heart of the company. It will just be one of many assets.

And how exactly do you know this? It's not a merger, it's Disney purchasing certain assets.

 

[peter11435]

Touchstone and Hollywood Pictures were certainly not separated from Disney, although Mirimax was..In fact, I believe Who Framed Roger Rabbit was a Touchstone IP that originally started as a Disney IP, but moved to Touchstone. Roger Rabbit, The Rocketeer, and Sister Act were all Touchstone Pictures movies that got attention at the theme parks, specifically at what was then Disney-MGM Studios.

Nightmare before Christmas was originally released under the touchstone label.

 

[mikejs78]

To

Nightmare before Christmas was originally released under the touchstone label.

Touchstone also released Mission to Mars, which inspired Mission Space (including bringing the lead from that movie, Gary Sinease over to play the narrator..)

So how exactly were they seperate, from Disney?

 

[wishiwere@wdw]

I have to wonder what executive talent might come with a potential acquisition? This could make a deal even more interesting if there is a legitimate CEO caliber talent that is able to be incorporated into the deal as it gives Disney a bit more bargaining power. Just a thought.

 

[Pixieish]

Honestly, this move would make huge sense to both sides. Disney could bail on the debacle that is ESPN and get *real* ownership of some pretty big Marvel names (minus usage in the parks, obviously), and Fox could stop competing with film studios completely and focus on News and Sports.

Also, just because they aren't in talks *right at this moment* doesn't mean they aren't having internal talks in regards to legal issues, etc. etc. They may have been feeling each other out, so to speak, and want to regroup before talk between the companies resumes.

 

[TROR]

Understanding that Wikipedia isn't the greatest source, I've always heard this to be true and, as such, I assumed Disney relatively distanced itself from the Touchstone label, but your examples of Roger Rabbit and The Rocketeer have made me revisit that thinking.

Disney decided to release the film under their Touchstone Pictures banner because they thought the film would be "too dark and scary for kids", Selick remembered. ... To convey Burton's' involvement and attract a wider audience, Disney marketed the film as Tim Burton's The Nightmare Before Christmas.

 

[mikejs78]

Understanding that Wikipedia isn't the greatest source, I've always heard this to be true and, as such, I assumed Disney relatively distanced itself from the Touchstone label, but your examples of Roger Rabbit and The Rocketeer have made me revisit that thinking.

The book DisneyWars gives a good history of the Eisner era and how he used Touchstone to make movies that just wouldn't fit under the Disney label.

 

[willtravel]

Sounds like the later.

Dis would not buy the broadcast network, Fox News channel, the sports side of things (anti-trust), or the affiliates.

FX, Nat Geo, BskyB and the movie production studio and rights would be the divisions that they would acquire.

Fox would essentially become a more focused company on Sports and News. Dis is trying to gobble up more entertainment opportunities to roll into their Netflix-like service.

If Disney is trying to gobble up more entertainment opportunities for future streaming service, why go thru such a large expense of a purchase? Just go with a contract like they have now with Netflix now? Unless it is for the franchises...

 

[the.dreamfinder]

And how exactly do you know this? It's not a merger, it's Disney purchasing certain assets.

The Disney part of the companyhas been increasingly marginalized since CapCities. Why wouldn’t the acquisition of a major film studio, cable channels and pay tv services not do the same?

 

[peter11435]

The Disney part of the companyhas been increasingly marginalized since CapCities. Why wouldn’t the acquisition of a major film studio, cable channels and pay tv services not do the same?

Disney has made many acquisitions over the years including film studios and cable channels and the company has always remained 'The Walt Disney company' no guarantee that continues but certainly no reason to speculate otherwise at this point.

 

[Pixieish]

Disney has made many acquisitions over the years including film studios and cable channels and the company has always remained 'The Walt Disney company' no guarantee that continues but certainly no reason to speculate otherwise at this point.

The only new consistency in branding that I've seen that's different is that they've dropped the "Walt" part from the castle intro. Now it just says "Disney".