Walt Disney

Very similar, with the only difference being that the Pixar films don’t inhabit the same universe. WB was right to try it because DC should be able to pull off something similar. They just failed in the execution. The interest in the characters is there though.

In fairness to them though, that’s how movies were made. That was the model that everyone was using. Marvel changed the model and wanted to do something very different and outside the box. Disney inherited that philosophy when they bought Marvel, and they let Kevin Feige carry out his vision.

For anyone that wants to see something cool, go to Google.com and type “Thanos” in the search engine. When you search, there will be an infinity gauntlet in the upper right hand corner. Double click on it.

I still feel like this is an April Fools Day joke. I can’t wrap my head around the numbers being predicted.

Sony could not be any luckier than to have the first MCU film after EG be their movie.

They have to use the profits from the movie to help recover some of what they spent to acquire Fox

I still can’t believe CM is going to gross more domestically than WW adjusted for inflation. WW felt like more of an event movie and I actually thought it was the better movie ( even though I only saw it once in theaters and saw CM twice in theaters). Yet, CM just keeps creeping closer and closer as the weeks go by.

That stinks. Baumer is an honest guy. If he lost, he would have paid up. Baumer lost a $50 bet to me and he paid me. Baumer is a man of his word. And if I had lost, I would have paid Baumer.

I was reading this board the whole weekend for TA, before I even joined. I suffered through the "disappointment" of AOU, even though AOU performed pretty well at the box office (really just GiantCALBears insulting RTH's predictions and bragging about how Harry Potter is bigger than Marvel will ever be). I was here for the "redemption" and glory that was IW. Now, we're in the Endgame. This should be an exciting weekend. I am going to be checking this site like crazy. After what happened with AOU, I am not going to get too over-confident, but I am hoping to see some fireworks, in a good way. I am ready for "Iron Man and friends."

The list has been updated to reflect the addition of Captain Marvel. For Whom the Bell Tolls has been removed from the list.

Yeah, there is a decline in the amount of movies the big studios are putting out. I was more referring to what you mentioned in your first point about 10,000 movies a year being made. Disney will have more power over exhibition, but if less movies are made by big studios, that opens the door for small movies. The movie theaters have to play some movie in their theaters. They won't leave screens blank.

That's not true about it just happening once. In the 1920's, there were 3 major studios: MGM, Paramount, and First National. Warner Bros. became a 4th major studio with the success of The Jazz Singer (first film with sound). They used their new found wealth to buy First National, which basically allowed Warner Bros. to be equal to MGM and Paramount. Then there's the case of MGM. Technically, another big studio did not buy them, but something much worse happened. Ted Turner bought MGM in 1986. He kept MGM's pre April 1986 film library, sold their studio lot to Lorimar, and sold the rest of the studio back to its former owner. He basically gutted the studio. Then, he bought New Line Cinema and merged the MGM library and New Line Cinema with Time Warner. So while Warner Bros. didn't buy MGM, they got the back catalog, which basically destroyed MGM (even though they still had the UA catalog).

The 40% market share is assuming Fox still makes the same number of movies, which I think we both agree that they won't. Also, market share just means that more people are paying to see those movies. That's not prohibiting competition. If MGM started making movies that everyone wanted to see, they'd have a bigger market share. One less studio means there could potentially be less competition. But again, competition isn't based on market share. It's based on how many studios are making movies, and there are still a lot of studios making movies. Sure they aren't as big as Fox, but they're still making movies. As an example, Spyglass is just starting up again. Smaller studios have problems getting their movies into theaters. So Fox making less movies helps those studios in that way. You're right, if no one wants to see those movies, but want to see Disney's tentpoles instead, then it is less competition. However, that's just the way the movie industry works. Netflix keeping people home watching movies instead of going to the theater is a similar competition killer. Ultimately, the Disney-Fox deal doesn't stop other studios from filling the void left by Fox. If Lionsgate makes more popular movies, they could end up filling Fox's void all by themselves. However, if a person just hates Disney, and wants Fox there to beat Disney at the box office, that person is hugely hurt by this deal. That's one less studio making tentpoles that could attempt to cut Disney down to size. But I am positive the majority of people don't really care about that.

Actually, it makes no difference, except to film-makers who only want to make big budget blockbusters. So yeah, a rational person would need an explanation.

There is competition. This deal does not prevent other studios from making movies. In fact, if you look at the overall number of releases, there are actually many more movies being made today than like 5 or 10 years ago (I can't remember where I read that statistic from, but I read it recently). It does mean a few less blockbusters will be made. But, that creates the opportunity for smaller movies to gain some market share. If you're a big tentpole movie fan, it does mean a few less movies. If you're a movie fan in general, and want less tentpoles and sequels, then it can only help you because smaller studios can fill the void. I see the downside if you're a huge Fox fan. I don't see the downside if you're a Fox Searchlight fan, because Disney is letting them do their own thing. I also don't see the downside if you're passionate about cinema because it just creates opportunities for other movies to gain some success. There is no shortage of movies being made.

Why?

Way to only quote part of the post. For James Cameron, it is a good thing. For people like you, I can imagine it is very annoying. But, you're in the minority.

Explain to me how rooting for Disney (or against it) has any effect on your "liberty of choice."

Of course they will. That's exactly what James Cameron wants. Cameron negotiated his contract with Fox, which carries over to Disney. So he wants Disney to market these sequels like crazy, so they make huge profits, so that Cameron makes huge profits. He wants Avatar Land to be successful because it helps promote the movie and he personally helped design Avatar Land (and you can be sure that it was more expensive that way because James Cameron is big on quality). But additionally, Cameron will get a percentage of merchandising. And Disney's consumer products division is much better than Fox's. That's an added revenue stream. Also, Emma Watts is still working for Disney as an executive at 20th Century Fox, and she is the one with the great working relationship with James Cameron. If we're just looking at this from James Cameron's perspective (which I know no one is, me included), Disney buying Fox is a good thing.

Netflix is saving everyone from wasting money going to movie theaters. They bring cinema to you in the comfort of your own home. Movie theaters are for suckers. But evil soulless multi-billion dollar conglomerates like Disney are now trying to withhold their movies from Netflix. This is a travesty.

Fox did not want to make Avatar until Disney was interested. Once Fox saw that Disney was willing to make the movie, they changed their mind. Disney also worked with Cameron to build Avatar Land in Walt Disney World. Disney and Cameron have a great relationship.

Exactly. Disney and Cameron are on great terms. There is going to be no tension there.

This pretty much sums it up. I don't think a lot of people here actually know why Disney really made the deal. You can see proof of that by a lot of the comments that people made about the deal.

With Disney's purchase of Fox complete, all future films from Fox that make the list will be added under Disney.

Anastasia is a Fox movie. While it isn't a Disney movie, it will be Disney owned very soon.