Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2017 15:58:27 GMT -5
True, but that was a very different Disney back before Marvel/Starwars. By 2009 Iger had no interest in anything that doesn't allow them to be able to promote across their various brands. Its been nearly a decade and I don't see Disney really seeing any significant dollar value in NOT incorporating properties into the larger brand as that's been their MO for nearly a decade now. Honestly, it’s not THAT different a Disney from the Eisner days. Not that I am comparing the two but Disney were the company that brought the Muppets for the singlular reason that it was an IP that could be spread across several different age groups, having success with adults and kids in the same way something like Looney Tunes did at one point for Warner Bros. It’s pretty much the same reason Nick only brought TMNT. Also, this was the company that brought Fox Family and all the franchises with it pretty much because a) there was a spare network slot for a boys channel, Fox Kids/Jetix which lead to Disney XD and b) because, like when they brought Marvel and Star Wars, they had no idea how to make a boys franchise. They could make a great family film but a lot of the stuff that was produced for a general audience. And, throwing my own theory out there, if you could put some stuff outside of the normal Disney fare on a Disney only streaming service, that’d be something that could give it something in the battle against Netflix. I don't doubt Disney has the capacity to make content for different age groups, but when it comes to the Marvel properties they'd acquire in the merger it just seems like Disney would loop all the Fox/Marvel entities back under Marvel proper. I'm sure they'd split off the non-Marvel properties under Fox into different avenues, but the FF, X-Men characters...you gotta know EXACTLY where they're going. Even with the news of baby Murdoch possibly getting Iger's position, I can't see that changing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2017 16:28:48 GMT -5
Disney also aren't stupid and aren't going to mess with a cash cow. If Deadpool continues to make money they'll let it do it's thing, if nothing else Deadpool just won't show up in the big Avengers movies even if he is still in the Universe. Which is fine since Deadpool never really should be an Avenger. though if done correctly due to his whole schtick you could easily fit him in the family friendly thing complaining about it. Also, on the Disney messing with a cash cow thing, there was a reason that some of the recent Pixar sequels were scrapped even though Disney wanted them to happen. Pixar essentially said "Erm, yeah, we have other ideas and stuff we want to do so those would probably be happening in, like, 30 years from now at best" and Disney looked at the box office for almost every other Pixar movie and went "...Fair point" and left them to it. It's also like Disney hasn't had adult films under their bracket before. They owned Miramax for years which is, like, 50% of Quentin Tarintino's back catalogue. I remember reading Disney War (a great story about the Eisner Era) where the executives fought hard against making Splash. But, in that time, Disney was an archaic relic of the times; lots of glory in the past, but virtually irrelevant today. These days, they'd fight just as hard against Deadpool 2 being R-rated. Not because it would look "un-Disney", but because it would not fit with the corporate synergy. Its difficult to immerse a character where other characters like to visualize his demise in graphic and ironic ways to the Wacky Sitcom Premise MCU. I don't agree with Moon most of the time, but I do here.
|
|
|
Post by Cyno on Dec 5, 2017 16:43:52 GMT -5
A Murdoch at the helm of Disney? Barf.
|
|
|
Post by Cyno on Dec 5, 2017 16:52:47 GMT -5
Hey! Still disgusting and disturbing. If that AT&T Time Warner merger is having trouble getting approved, how the f*** is this one okay? The AT&T-Time Warner merger was way further along before the DoJ stepped in with an anti-trust suit. The Disney-Fox talks are still in their infancy.
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Attack Tribble on Dec 5, 2017 16:56:56 GMT -5
Hey! Still disgusting and disturbing. If that AT&T Time Warner merger is having trouble getting approved, how the f*** is this one okay? The AT&T-Time Warner merger was way further along before the DoJ stepped in with an anti-trust suit. The Disney-Fox talks are still in their infancy. Reports coming out in the last few hours suggest the deal is all but done and an announcement could be made within days.
|
|
|
Post by 1 Free Moon-Down with Burger on Dec 5, 2017 17:02:21 GMT -5
I don't agree with Moon most of the time, but I do here. Whaaaat?! I thought we were boys!!
|
|
|
Post by The Summer of Muskrat XVII on Dec 5, 2017 17:03:23 GMT -5
Strong arming the threatres for a higher cut of ticket sales could bite them in the ass here. That'll absolutely send up anti trust red flags
|
|
|
Post by Cyno on Dec 5, 2017 18:14:10 GMT -5
Hmm, things certainly escalated quicker than I expected. I guess we'll see if politics play into any potential anti-trust suits or lack thereof.
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Dec 5, 2017 18:56:30 GMT -5
A merger with a Murdoch ending up as CEO of Disney would be an absolute disaster.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2017 19:19:00 GMT -5
I don't agree with Moon most of the time, but I do here. Whaaaat?! I thought we were boys!! We are. Brothers don't get along ALL the time, you know?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2017 19:36:48 GMT -5
A merger with a Murdoch ending up as CEO of Disney would be an absolute disaster. That not going to happen. The only thing Disney is buying is their film studio, Hulu and a couple Tv channel. So things like Fox News, Fox Sport, Fox and etc are still going to be own by Murdoch.
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Attack Tribble on Dec 5, 2017 19:40:43 GMT -5
|
|
Mochi Lone Wolf
Fry's dog Seymour
Development through Destruction.
Posts: 24,047
|
Post by Mochi Lone Wolf on Dec 6, 2017 10:41:32 GMT -5
Oh sweet merciful lord, help me. Why is that family even still relevant after the hacking debacle?
|
|
wildojinx
Wade Wilson
Posts: 26,904
Member is Online
|
Post by wildojinx on Dec 6, 2017 11:54:42 GMT -5
So does this affect the main Fox Network or not? I've heard conflicting reports. I just cant see the Simpsons or Family Guy or Bob's Burgers under the Disney brand.
|
|
|
Post by The Summer of Muskrat XVII on Dec 6, 2017 12:09:56 GMT -5
So does this affect the main Fox Network or not? I've heard conflicting reports. I just cant see the Simpsons or Family Guy or Bob's Burgers under the Disney brand. From what I can tell, the TV production and properties would go to Disney but the network itself would stay with Fox.
|
|
Push R Truth
Patti Mayonnaise
Unique and Special Snowflake, and a pants-less heathen.
Perpetually Constipated
Posts: 39,310
|
Post by Push R Truth on Dec 6, 2017 12:25:35 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by James Fabiano on Dec 6, 2017 14:25:43 GMT -5
So does this affect the main Fox Network or not? I've heard conflicting reports. I just cant see the Simpsons or Family Guy or Bob's Burgers under the Disney brand. From what I can tell, the TV production and properties would go to Disney but the network itself would stay with Fox. If so, I wonder if it would light a fire under the Simpsons' bottom, as I asked before? Or is it too late for that? I can see Seth try to get out if he's under a company that doesn't let him do what he wants.
|
|
|
Post by Hakumental on Dec 6, 2017 14:27:54 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by 1 Free Moon-Down with Burger on Dec 6, 2017 14:31:34 GMT -5
You can probably go ahead and add US Government in like....2 years. (If not right now)
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Attack Tribble on Dec 6, 2017 15:01:19 GMT -5
|
|