Walt Disney
-
Posts
8,285 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Annual Subscriptions
Media Demo
Posts posted by Walt Disney
-
-
4 minutes ago, YourMother the Edgelord said:
but I think there is some anger at Disney purchasing Fox rather than if some other studio got it.
Pretty much this. I wasn't angry at all when Fox made an attempt to purchase Time Warner a couple years ago.
-
2 minutes ago, Lordmandeep said:
Its called a meme
Shows you what I know. I still don't know what it means.
-
4 minutes ago, YourMother the Edgelord said:
I can't figure out what that picture means. Good smile though.
-
I am happy that this deal happened. I was very skeptical that this deal would go through, but I am glad it did. The thing I wanted really badly was for Disney to get the film rights back to the Fantastic Four and X-Men. I want an MCU that is like the comics, and have since 2011 (I think most Marvel fans have shared that desire as well). The only thing Disney/Marvel doesn't have is the rights to the solo Spider-Man films, but they have the rights to use Spider-Man in any cross-over films. This is something that I never thought would happen because Fox never wanted to let those rights go, so this may have been one of the only ways to get these characters back home to Marvel.
I am happy that Disney now has the distribution rights for all the Star Wars films, including the original Star Wars.
Having Avatar is great because it makes the Avatar attraction in Walt Disney World actually make sense and belong there. Disney did want to make Avatar originally, but Fox had a right of first refusal, and once Disney was interested (and only then) did Fox exercise that right. Disney is on great terms with James Cameron, so that is good as well.
I am a huge Yankees fan, so Disney getting the YES Network combines the movie studio/theme park company that I like with the sports network for my favorite baseball team.
This deal also should prevent an Apple or Verizon from buying Disney, which was a real fear. It is remarkable that Disney is the only movie studio that has never been bought by another company. Even Fox was bought by News Corp. in 1985. Disney is still independent.
I don't really share everyone's concerns over the lack of competition because Lionsgate is on the cusp as emerging as a major studio and MGM is trying to get back into the distribution game with the Spyglass guys now in charge of MGM. As far as blockbusters go though, Disney just expanded their lead. I am curious to see what happens with Fox Searchlight.
-
2
-
-
38 minutes ago, The Last Panda said:
At this point it's best to just ignore this thread as people are either worshiping the deal or hailing it as the coming of the anti-christ.
The deal will happen or not happen no matter what any of us think. So our opinions are meaningless. But, if you can find something positive about it, then I think it makes sense to focus on that. But that's just me.
-
2
-
-
Great article analyzing why this deal is necessary for Disney:
-
2
-
1
-
-
-
8 hours ago, Jandrew said:
Disney has enough content and enough money to make a streaming service. Directv did it, Turner's doing, Discovery's doing it, BET did it. Disney Channel alone has enough content to fuel a platform.
Disney is already the clear cut #1 when it comes to IP's. The fact that you seriously think they need more , and that you as a consumer is going to get most of the benefit is just...whatever, this is like the tax bill. Hopefully they'll just buy my house next.
-
2
-
-
13 minutes ago, Jandrew said:
Disney didn't figure anything out. You make it sound like they're leading the charge, but actually they're late to the game. Like I said, even BET already has a streaming service.
Disney already has an expansive library, they're Disney. HBO has like 5 shows that everyone watches, yet they manage with their service. Disney has a pool of content to HBO's puddle. They dont need Fox. They also didn't need to ax their deal with Netflix. This merger is bigger than that, and I can't believe you're actually rooting for a corporation that's already so big, they have enough power to hold one of LA's largest cities hostage.
Nor are streaming services a fool proof solution anyway.
Of course they needed to ax the Netflix agreement. It was a massive mistake to begin with because it gave Netflix a strong foothold in the marketplace. Disney clearly needs the library because no one spends 60 Billion dollars if they don't have to. Streaming services are not foolproof, but I believe the deal has enough value that it should still ultimately be profitable for Disney, even if the streaming service is not as successful as Disney thinks it will be.
Of course I am rooting for this because it is exciting and it gives Disney a lot of valuable IPs to utilize. Box office is rooting for large corporations to be successful. If that bothered me, I wouldn't be here, but rather I'd be on awards show message boards or general movie message boards.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Jandrew said:
Cord cutting isn't as big a deal as it's made out to be because they're still getting a bunch of those people back in other ways, plus other revenue areas. It'd be different if people were dropping TV and internet and not watching entirely.
It isn't a big deal yet, but it is beginning to be and it will only get worse. But you're right, they can get those people back another way, and Disney figured out how: create your own streaming service. However, Disney needs more content to be successful and they found that content in Fox. That's their solution to getting people back.
-
1
-
-
12 minutes ago, Fullbuster said:
Because I love their animated movies, what else? They bring us a magic you don't see from other studios. Plus, I love comics starring Scrooge McDuck, Donald and Mickey.
So of course I want them to be successful and strong
It makes me happy too. If it didn't, then it wouldn't be any fun following the box office.
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, Mojoguy said:
I imagine WB wanted to get WW right for her first movie. The moment they put out a shitty WW movie, the character is turned into a laughingstock like Green Lateran did after this movie came out. The GL brand is really tainted right now because of the film, that failure even led to the cancellation of his popular animated show.I don't buy this argument. Catwoman and Steel were way before Green Lantern tainted that brand. And they had no idea Green Lantern was going to bomb. They thought it would be a great success. I don't think they took more time with Wonder Woman than they did with their previous superhero movies. Green Lantern is much more ambitious and difficult to pull off than Wonder Woman is.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, YourMother the Edgelord said:
The better question is how old you are?
Old enough to legally buy alcohol and not be full of teen angst.
-
2
-
-
2 minutes ago, CoolEric258 said:
Funny you should say that, because I love Disney's current output. Obviously, not all of their films are good, but I'd roughly say about 75% or so of what Disney has put out this decade I've managed to get some enjoyment out of. However, just because I like a company's films doesn't mean I can't be critical or feel shifty towards business decisions and practices, especially over a major movie studio buying another major movie studio, an idea which hurts competition, a diverse market, and potentially a lot of franchises I have a fondness for.
You don't have to like the deal and are free to express that you don't like it. That doesn't make you immature. Obviously, I wasn't talking about you. And I also don't mean everyone that doesn't like the deal. But not everyone is expressing that dislike in a mature way.
-
8 minutes ago, Mojoguy said:
WB and DC have always been supportive of Wonder Woman. WW comics have been near constant publication since her creation in 40s, the Lynda Carter WW show is very iconic, WW has appeared in many DC cartoons and direct to video animated movies. There have been several attempts to make new shows and movies about WW like that one on the NBC and the Amazon show on CW, things just didn't work out.When you're making a Catwoman movie, a Steel movie, and a Jonah Hex movie, all before you make a Wonder Woman movie, I find it hard to believe they have always been supportive of Wonder Woman.
-
2
-
-
Honestly, after reading some of the comments in this thread, I don't think I can make fun of Steve Jaros for his anti-Disney comments anymore. Some of the comments here are so immature that it really makes me wonder how many posters on this board are younger than 18.
-
2
-
-
3 hours ago, AJG said:
Nobody would’ve seen this happening at the start of 2017.
I wouldve guessed Sony would be the first one to get sold off. Murdoch getting rid of Fox is a huge signal of where they think the industry is going. Viacom is surely going by the end of next year too.
I thought Sony also. I read articles where Sony was predicted to be sold 2 years ago. Sony was the weakest of the big 6. After the Spider-Man arrangement with Disney, I thought Disney may end up buying Sony, but like 5 years down the road.
I read an article written in November after it was reported that Disney and Fox were no longer engaged in talks. He predicted that they would, end up talking again. He expected consolidation in the industry, but thought Disney would buy Sony or Paramount. He felt that Fox was doing pretty well, and Disney was aiming above Sony and Paramount by buying Fox.
The industry is very worried about Amazon and Netflix. Disney itself was the talk of being bought by Apple or Verizon. But, I feel like Disney, with Fox added to the company, is big enough to take all of these companies on. I wonder if either one or both of Amazon and Netflix buy Sony and Paramount.
-
1
-
-
6 hours ago, Darth Suburious said:
This thread was ruined when Disney got greedy.
The whole thread is about Disney buying Fox, so your post makes no sense.
-
1
-
-
21 minutes ago, Darth Suburious said:
It will kinda weird throwing in mutants after all these years they never been mentioned. Plus the government likes heroes but does not like Mutants?
This has been said countless numbers of times over the past 5 years, but I guess I can repeat it. Depending on how they choose to handle things, it could be that mutants have existed, but are only just being discovered by the general population. Kind of like the government has kept their existence a secret. Some government elements may not like mutants because they're different than others. And the general population as a whole will have the same issue. With other superheroes, they're normal people who obtained special powers and are known to be good.
But the thing that makes this line of questioning ridiculous (and has for the past 5 years on this board) is that mutants have existed in the Marvel universe since the beginning because Namor (one of the first Marvel heroes/ anti-heroes) is a mutant. No one has ever said "Marvel needs to sell these mutant characters" or "Marvel needs to get these characters out of the 616" or "Wolverine should not be teaming up with the Avengers." No one EVER had a problem with the Marvel universe in the comics. No one has a problem with them now. It is only people on this board (usually the same people who don't really enjoy the MCU movies) who have this agenda of keeping the X-Men separate from the rest of the MCU because *insert reasons*.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, The Futurist said:
Do we know why Murdoch wnats to sell ?
The reports are that he feels his studio can't compete with Netflix, Amazon, Apple and Google. He doesn't think 20th Century Fox can get big enough to compete. He believes that the assets he is selling are still are valued high right now, and the longer he waits to sell the more they will decrease in value.
-
8
-
-
1 hour ago, MrGlass2 said:
Spider-Man: Homecoming, still a Sony movie.
And Marvel isn't a studio but just a part of Disney/BV.
I agree with both of these. Still, as a sub-studio, their blockbusters are more successful than a lot of full blown studios.
-
2
-
1
-
-
40 minutes ago, YourMother the Edgelord said:
I meant from Jaros.
I believe that'll be his next club as well. My real question is what studio he'll use for 2019. If Disney owns Fox by then, that'll be one less option for him.
-
1
-
3
-
-
13 minutes ago, RRA said:
There is though it goes without saying adding X-Men and Wolverine into the MCU as two proven franchise draws (and MCU has a stacked bench as it is!) is the equivalent of the Astros signing two major free agents that they don’t need to win titles, but gee it’s nice to have the extra insurance.
It's different since Marvel wants to use their own characters. These aren't free agents. In the comics, they ARE a part of the Marvel universe. It's logical to want that on the big screen as well. I mean logical everywhere except this board, where I have heard the strangest rationalizations for keeping the X-Men out of the MCU.
-
1
-
-
28 minutes ago, MovieMan89 said:
If reactions are that good something like 125/400 could happen.
Here's hoping.
Episode IV:A NEW MOUSE | DISNEY | IT IS DONE
in The Speakeasy
Posted
I already gave you multiple reasons. You probably know the answer to this question. If you really don't, then I'll gladly answer the question.