The Panda

It's a very good movie. The reason I said you might want to see it separately was I found it becomes effecting after sitting on it and thinking back to it.

If I see a spoiler in here

Winning the revenue crown for the year is bragging rights though, it doesn't mean the other studios aren't able to compete and make a profit?

Now that this is Disney, Disney will buy out the critics as well as the theaters (so they'll report higher numbers, duh). Thus, this is going to be 345m OW / 1.78B DOM / 2.87B China / 12 BILLION DOLLAHS WW!!!

I think it's probably better to look at the major hits each studio has had in the last 5 years or so WB - DCEU (Wonder Woman, BvS, MoS, SS, etc) - Potter/Fantastic Beasts - IT - Middle Earth (Hobbits) - Nolan (Interstellar Int., Dunkirk, TDKR, Inception) - LEGO (Batman and Movie) - Eastwood (American Sniper and Sully) - Original Tenpoles (Gravity, Edge of Tomorrow, San Andreas, Hangover movies, Pacific Rim) - Monster Movies (Godzilla, Kong) - The Conjuring Franchise + Horror (Conjuring 1 and 2, Annabelle 1 and 2, Lights Out) - Rocky (Creed, Creed 2?) - Comedies (We're the Millers, Central Intelligence, Tammy) - Mad Max - Magic Mike movies - 300 movies - Tarzan - Great Gatsby - Journey - Argo Universal - Illumination (Despicable Me Franchise, Pets, Sing, Dr. Seuss, etc) - DreamWorks (The Boss Baby, Home, HTTYD, etc.) - Jurassic Park Franchise - Fast and Furious Franchise - Original Horror (Get Out, Split, Happy Death Day, Purge Franchise, The Visit, Mama - Comedies (Pitch Perfect Franchise, Ride Along Franchise, Ted, Trainwreck, Neighbors, Dumb and Dumber, Sisters, Identity Thief - Fifty Shades Franchise - Monster Franchise (Dracula, Mummy) - Bourne Franchise - Straight Outta Compton - Les Miserables - Lucy - Unbroken - Lone Survivor - Snow White Sony - Spider-Man franchise - James Bond - Sony Animations (Emoji Movie, Angry Birds, Sausage Party, Cloudy 1 and 2, Hotel Transylvania - Jump Street Movies - Men in Black Movies - American Hustle - TriStar Religious (War Room, Heaven is For Real) - Baby Driver - Passengers - Ghostbusters - Grown Ups - Captain Phillips - This is the End - The Vow - Think Like a Man Paramount - Star Trek - Transformers - Mission Impossible - SpongeBob - Daddys Home - Anchorman - Arrival - Cloverfield - World War Z - Paranormal Activity - Jackass - Top Gun - G.I. Joe - TMNT - The Wolf of Wall Street - Terminator - Interstellar Obviously Fox/Disney is destined to have the most market power, but to say they'll eliminate their competition is a little ridiculous when you look and see that the other major studios still had a high output.

Dublin Film Critic Winners

I know what you're saying. I'm simply saying you were wrong. And yes, things work by definition. I was already being generous by defining a monopoly by 90% market power, many industrial economists are even more stingy with their definition for a monopoly. I'm also saying the roughly 30-40% market share Disney-Fox will have (possibly less, as we shouldn't expect Disney to crank out as many movies with Fox as they were, and there's a good chance Sony, Paramount or WB start producing more) is not going to create an uncompetitive environment where the other major studios can't keep up and compete.

Except that's also not true. They have high market power but other firms will compete fine. It's an Oligopoly where each major studio's actions effect each other. Just because one studio has the most market power does not make it near impossible for others to compete.

A loose definition of monopoly needs 90% market share for one company. Disney + Fox isn't close.

Again. Disney is not close to being a monopoly.

I'm going to say this whenever I see somebody say monopoly in this thread. Disney is not close to being a monopoly.

From what I understand Iger doesn't want to sell, and this purchase isn't accounting for potential growth that'll happen within the next few years due to Disney's expansions into streaming and such. Yes, Apple can still buy Disney, but Disney seems to be moving more towards trying to be a major player in media distribution than being a bought out player.

Comcast could, but Sony/Paramount would have been targets anyways. Disney on the other hand is starting to become to big to buy, especially if their venture into streaming goes well. They're a much harder target for Apple to take with this expansion.

You're keeping Fox as a studio though. Meaning they keep the creative talents and such as well. Disney isn't buying Fox so they can shut down their assets that don't fit the 'Disney Brand'. They're buying Fox Assets so they can have properties that go beyond the Disney Brand without having to Brand it Disney. If they want a successful streaming service, having one that has major awards contenders, a variety of content and franchises is important. They also need a larger stream of new content to go into that service. Fox Searchlight and various Fox Brands allow Disney to expand from the current demographics they currently have covered from Star Wars, Marvel and Animation. A smart studio (which Disney and Iger are) aren't going to spend 60b on a deal and not intend to use it.

I still think things like this are overreactions. It seems to be coming more from pessimistic emotions than actually based on the facts we know. So far we know Disney is intending on keeping Searchlight, 2000 and 20th Century in tact. Those studios keep their jobs. If they run them like they run Lucasfilm and Marvel, they likely retain some autonomy too. This isn't starting a trend of mergers and buyouts, its continuing a trend/system that's existed for the last century. The quality of the product consumer was receive will go down? There's really no way to determine that. In all actuality, consumers seem to be liking Disney's stuff quite a bit (plus reviews are usually fairly glowing for most of their releases), I don't see how Disney is going to hurt Fox's film quality. We already know they intend to keep Deadpool R, so they won't be watering down adult properties. This is horizontal integration, now vertical. This isn't a case of Disney expanding itself outside of an entertainment and media market. Also, given the modern nature of the media market and the innovation of streaming, I'm not sure that market structure can support more than 5 or 6 companies. Outside of the entertainment and media markets, it won't be the same 5 or 6. Further, had Disney not bought Fox Comcast likely would have and you'd risk Apple buying Disney. Further vertically integrating communication markets and film studios. That's worse for competition than we're getting with Disney buying Fox's film assets. I could go on. Anyways, in a perfect world, every market would be perfectly competitive and we wouldn't have to worry about oligopolies and major buyouts. However, due to cost structures and the nature of certain industries, more concentrated markets are inevitable (as you'll either have a concentrated market or none at all).

Why not just view Star Wars twice??

Eh, no it doesn't. This comment is spoken more from a rash reaction, and less from actual reason from the situation. Further, there's little doubt that this deal should pass regulation, it's an actual merger, there's quite a bit on why. Based on how Disney is treating the buyout, they obviously intend to use the franchises, and consumers will notice little difference. Also, while it may weaken the competitiveness of the movie industry, there's a tradeoff as it will allow Disney to enter the streaming industry and heighten the competitiveness in that market. If you're interested in streaming services, there's some benefit to it. Overall, the deal's not going to bring the apocalypse, it doesn't even seem like it'll be a major change to the film landscape.

People need to stop saying that. Based on current market shares the film industry may still not technically be an oligopoly (but it'll be fairly close). Disney is not a monopoly at all.

What he's trying to say is that his site gets more clicks if it's the only rotten review than if it's another fresh review in the swarm of many.

Movie's dialing back on production and cutting mid-budget films has less to do with merging studios and everything to do with a changing demand from consumers. If consumers won't spend enough on mid-budget movies for them to be profitable, why should a studio make them? People are going to the theaters less now, and using streaming services more. Changing times requires changing strategies.

Well, I guess I can say Happy Death Day is now included in my model. It's obviously at the bottom of the excel sheet, but it's there.

Odenkirk's definitely not 4. He hasn't gotten notice beyond a few twitter shoutouts.

Once I finish all of my finals lots of good movies in town. Star Wars in 70mm 2D IMAX, Shape of Water in a close theater, The Disaster Artist in a close theater. Hopefully CMBYN and Phantom Thread expands into the metroplex soon. I don't know how I'll get to see The Florida Project anytime soon, sadly.

Oscars haven't started the nom process, so it shouldn't hurt them. I think it's safe to say Streep gets in over Dench, Hanks is another question given the fact the Academy seems to snub him a lot recently. I also think late Phantom Thread kept DDL out over Washington. So I'd replace Washington with either DDL or Hanks (leaning on DDL) Harrelson is probably the most in danger of the Supp actor SAG noms to not get an Oscar nod, then Carell (However I think Carell could get in as their alternatives are either double noms, Stewart or Plummer). For Supp Actress, I could see all 5 making it in, but if any swap out it'll be Chau or Blige (because of Netflix), and they'd be swapped with Spencer or Hadish (Maybe Maville, but that seems like an off-chance).

I'd personally try to see them on separate days. Lady Bird is a great movie, so it'd be best not to let your Star Wars experience overshadow it. I saw Lady Bird and Three Billboards in the same day, and it probably hurt my experience for both movies because I was trying to digest both at the same time.