Episode IV:A NEW MOUSE | DISNEY | IT IS DONE

[Barnack]

2 hours ago, grey ghost said:

The media landscape is rapidly changing. That's the whole reason Rupert Murdoch sold now.

This cord cutting is a big deal for those conglomerate, actual making of movies/tv series is not a big percentage of those media conglomerate revenues and usually even less of their profits, the money was in distributing content until very recently.

 

Disney for example:

 

Revenues

Media network: 23.7b

Park and resort: 16.9b

Studio ent: 9.44b

Consumer product: 5.5b

 

Operating income:

Media networls: 7.75b

Park&Resorts: 3.3b

Studio ent: 2.7b (and that was exceptionnal, 1.9b in 2015)

Consumer products: 1.96b

 

The studio part was "only" 17% of the revenues and of the profits, Fox that was around 14% of the profits last year, for all that talk about movies that is a relatively small part of those company profits.

 

What happen to those company media network division is really huge.

 

And for both the main revenus sources (cable networks / broadcasting), that was around 70% of those company business are going down:

Cable Networks Operating income at Cable Networks decreased $207 million to $1.4 billion for the quarter due to decreases at ESPN and the Disney Channels, partially offset by an increase at Freeform.

https://ditm-twdc-us.storage.googleapis.com/q4-fy16-earnings.pdf

 

Big time.

 

the biggest revenues sources of Disney could completely go away as soon as 2021:

 

Avatar is nice, but that does not replace the 11 billion annual revenus with extreme high margin ESPN was making (that a 22b at domestic box office), ESPN was worth over 50 billion not so long ago and was the world most valuable media entity, franchises are worth what 1 to 4b and something that make 2b a year in average would be considered a monster (remember that you get 50% of the box office when you compare revenues here).

Disney plan is to become less and less dependant of the consequence of the domestic cord cutting going right into their most profitable business,  acquiring media network in international growing market, getting in the streaming game, boosting franchise portfolio part of the business, all goes with that.

 

There is a lot of talk about the movie side of those 2 company because it is a movie forum, but actual making of movies (even including tv series) does not seem to be a big part of those company or of the deal.

 

Edited December 13, 2017 by Barnack

[Jandrew]

23 minutes ago, Barnack said:

This cord cutting is a big deal for those conglomerate, actual making of movies/tv series is not a big percentage of those media conglomerate revenues and usually even less of their profits, the money was in distributing content until very recently.

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.

 

As for ESPN, they and Disney made their bed. People blame cord cutters, but the company doesn't have great leadership. And ESPN alone is a big reason cable is so high in the first place. I believe ESPN now costs $9/subscriber. They blame "well it's live", but it's really because they signed ridiculous broadcast deals that they can't get out of. TNT is a top 10 channel I think they're $1.50 or something like that.

 

Snagging all the Fox regionals will help, but slapping the ESPN name on it is just going to turn off many people at this point. But it gives Disney another thing to monopolize.

 

Edited December 13, 2017 by Jandrew

[Barnack]

3 minutes 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, and there's ad revenue. It'd be different if people were dropping TV and not watching entirely.

 

Maybe it will end up ok, but the transition period will be harsh, total ads revenues does not change just split between cord and web and you need to pay for both at the moment. People didn't drop tv but do not watch ads anymore that much (tivo, watch non-ads stuff/video game/second screen in hand during the ads play, etc...).

 

Quote

They blame "well it's live", but it really because they signed ridiculous broadcast deals that they can't get out of. 

Until recently those giant deal (and that is true for many player I think, Canada deal for hockey were also a bit ridiculous) made sense, because there was a non-crazy thought the only possible reason to have cable will be HD live event only reason to ever watch and ads will also be live event, everything else will be consumed otherwise, making sport extremely valuable in people eye.

[Jandrew]

15 minutes ago, Barnack said:

Until recently those giant deal (and that is true for many player I think, Canada deal for hockey were also a bit ridiculous) made sense, because there was a non-crazy thought the only possible reason to have cable will be HD live event only reason to ever watch and ads will also be live event, everything else will be consumed otherwise, making sport extremely valuable in people eye.

I have to disagree because many these deals are fairly recent, I'm not talking pre-HD. The terrible NBA deal. The MNF deal, the College Football Playoff deal, the SEC deal, the Longhorn Network deal...which has been a fail, etc. ESPN didn't care about cost, they just wanted to get exclusivity, and they balked at the asking prices. Now they've had to raise subscriber fees to help offset, and TV providers aren't okay with it.

 

ESPN subscriber prices? $9. Who is 2nd? Fox Sports at....$1.86 according to Business Insider. ESPN bloated themselves and the fees are how they stop the hemorrhaging.

 

ESPN has bad leadership, and they're losing what made them the sports network. They literally laid off most of their hockey stuff during the NHL playoffs. Maybe this streaming service will help, and maybe that'll be a catalyst for Disney to get this deal through, because when ESPN loses, they lose.

[Warmaster506]

The extreme bias of ESPN is a fucking joke.  Only so much cock sucking of Boston/New York and other ESPN favorites people can take.

[Walt Disney]

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.

[kowhite]

It’s happening.

 

 

Gonna be really interesting though on the other hand, so,  ?

Edited December 13, 2017 by kowhite

[Jandrew]

24 minutes ago, Walt Disney said:

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.

 

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. 

Edited December 13, 2017 by Jandrew

[Walt Disney]

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.

[BK007]

34 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. 

 

There is no using logic with shills. 

 

Save your breath and time.

[Jandrew]

24 minutes ago, Walt Disney said:

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.

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.

 

Edited December 13, 2017 by Jandrew

[Harpospoke]

9 hours ago, filmlover said:

I think it's a given someone will buy Paramount down the line. They've had a pretty rotten year, and next year doesn't look to be much better for them.

Oh I hope it's WB so I can see it get 1/8th the attention this is getting.

6 hours ago, Goffe said:

Folks defending this merger in any capacity are going straight to my ignore list. Won’t waste my time reading  trash and myopic posts, life’s too short.

Sweet.   This kind of reactionary stuff is hilarious.    "How dare you not agree with my opinion!"    It's just not enough for some people to have their own opinion I guess.

6 hours ago, YourMother the Edgelord said:

The merger is obviously good because Iron Man and Wolverine can teamup. That’s obviously the only thing that matters. Who cares about the jobs lose, the less diversity in the marketplace, and the more control Disney will have.

4 hours ago, tribefan695 said:

I think it's just plain too soon to tell. I admit my unease at Disney making such a big acquisition but at the same time they are responsible for a lot of my favorite movies and crying foul is pointless and futile at this stage. I suspect, like a lot of things the internet rages over, the fears are going to end up overblown.

Oh definitely.    It's the usual doom proclamations.    It's almost always exaggerated and very few remember the panic stricken predictions later.

 

Somehow Disney is going to stop movie making.   Never mind that if the public wants certain kinds of movies, someone is going to make them and take that money.  (there are thousands and thousands of people just dying to make movies)  The free market and human ingenuity are never factored in to doomsday predictions though.

 

Going to be fun to bring up these doom predictions later.   I'm not one that forgets that stuff.   

4 hours ago, YourMother the Edgelord said:

However we should note that Fox wanted to sell. I’m not denying going to Disney is a very bad choice but Comcast would’ve been as bad if not worse imo. I’m against monopoly no matter what. I’m mad at both.

And there is where I started noticing the agenda.    Comcast has barely been mentioned during this entire thing over the past month.   Probably the most they got mentioned was when they pulled out of the talks a few days ago.

 

It was also never about the fact that Fox wanted to sell and that they are the only reason this is happening.    The Disney thing was ringing so loudly in some people's ears that they couldn't hear anything else.   Fox is suddenly being painted as the bravest little underdog studio in the world.    Only they can give us our boobs, violence, and curse words in our movies.

[BK007]

3 hours ago, grey ghost said:

If Verizon or Comcast own Blockbusters Video, Bing and IMDB.

 

Without Net Neutrality...

 

There is no Netflix or Hulu.

 

There is no Google.

 

There is no BOT.

 

We're forced to use Blockbusters shitty website, Bing's shitty search engine and IMDB's shitty forum.

 

Why?

 

Because that's what the ISP's want and without Net Neutrality they have complete control whether Shawn can even succeed with a website like this.

 

Fox Searchlight is nice and everything but you might lose all your favorite websites including this one.

 

You guys are playing tic tac toe while your king chesspiece is surrounded.

 

 

 

 

 

Who are you targeting with this? 

 

Right now, whether you intend to or not, you're aligning yourself with shills who are most likely the ones also rooting to remove net neutrality.

 

Posting style, unfortunately, is utterly predictable and indicative of what causes these "posters" are aligned with.

 

In any case, what are you doing to help stop it? This is an American problem. Unfettered capitalism brings you here. 

[Barnack]

33 minutes ago, Harpospoke said:

Somehow Disney is going to stop movie making.   Never mind that if the public wants certain kinds of movies, someone is going to make them and take that money.  (there are thousands and thousands of people just dying to make movies)  The free market and human ingenuity are never factored in to doomsday predictions though.

 

You talk has if it could not happen when it already kind of did.

 

Disney new distributed movie by year

 

2000: 44

2001: 39

2002: 46

2003: 38

2004: 33

2005: 31

2006: 28

2007: 21

2008: 21

2009: 23

2010: 16

2011: 14

2012: 13

2013: 10

2014: 13

2015: 11

2016: 13

2017: 8! 

 

The output got to be less than 25% of what it was early 2000's, movie making, movie that cannot be turned into toys and a section in a attraction park , just movies are almost gone of the current Disney model (could be just a phase, but they stopped making or distributing movies pretty much).

 

Going from around 40 movies to 8, is not literally stopping making them, but is a major drop.

 

In the early 2000's the MPAA studios were releasing around 200 movie a year, if they would have followed Disney it would be down to 40 in 2017.

 

33 minutes ago, Harpospoke said:

The free market and human ingenuity are never factored in to doomsday predictions though.

When the people making the movies are the same distributing and showing them, the market can steer a bit less toward free competition among people making movies, some having the giant advantage of controlling there distribution over the others, there is a reason people panicked about studio owning movie theater and made it illegal back in the days:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Paramount_Pictures,_Inc.

 

The studios created the films, had the writers, directors, producers and actors on staff ("under contract" as it was called), owned the film processing and laboratories, created the prints and distributed them through the theaters that they owned

 

Is it illegitimate to feel it is going back to a model looking more to what the old studio system was, to have a completely studio owned from producing to the consumer model by a studio vertically integrated platform ?

 

Now panicking over this is a bit much, not only it is only movies but the studio system movies were not bad, quality will be there like they are at Pixar (the closest to that today), but breaking that model in the 40s is what killed the golden age and brought independent producers and smaller studios, for better and worst.

 

A Netflix type platform would buy from anyone yes they put they<re own product bigger and more frequent icons on your interface but that was mostly it, Disney platform will almost certainly heavily favorise their own stuff if not be 100% exclusive to them.

 

 

Edited December 13, 2017 by Barnack

[BK007]

19 minutes ago, Barnack said:

You talk has if it could not happen when it already kind of did.

 

Disney new distributed movie by year

 

2000: 44

2001: 39

2002: 46

2003: 38

2004: 33

2005: 31

2006: 28

2007: 21

2008: 21

2009: 23

2010: 16

2011: 14

2012: 13

2013: 10

2014: 13

2015: 11

2016: 13

2017: 8! 

 

The output got to be less than 25% of what it was early 2000's, movie making, movie that cannot be turned into toys and a section in a attraction park , just movies are almost gone of the current Disney model (could be just a phase, but they stopped making or distributing movies pretty much).

 

Going from around 40 movies to 8, is not literally stopping making them, but is a major drop.

 

In the early 2000's the MPAA studios were releasing around 200 movie a year, if they would have followed Disney it would be down to 40 in 2017.

 

When the people making the movies are the same distributing and showing them, the market can steer a bit less toward free competition among people making movies, some having the giant advantage of controlling there distribution over the others, there is a reason people panicked about studio owning movie theater and made it illegal back in the days:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Paramount_Pictures,_Inc.

 

The studios created the films, had the writers, directors, producers and actors on staff ("under contract" as it was called), owned the film processing and laboratories, created the prints and distributed them through the theaters that they owned

 

Is it illegitimate to feel it is going back to a model looking more to what the old studio system was, to have a completely studio owned from producing to the consumer model by a studio vertically integrated platform ?

 

Now panicking over this is a bit much, not only it is only movies but the studio system movies were not bad, quality will be there like they are at Pixar (the closest to that today), but breaking that model in the 40s is what killed the golden age and brought independent producers and smaller studios, for better and worst.

 

A Netflix type platform would buy from anyone yes they put they<re own product bigger and more frequent icons on your interface but that was mostly it, Disney platform will almost certainly heavily favorise their own stuff if not be 100% exclusive to them.

 

 

 

Can't argue with logic against these people. 

 

In fact, they don't listen at all, pretend to know more than they do and anyways write you off when they feel uncomfortable.

 

Best ignore them (though that in itself is no solution, as it leads us to Trump's America). 

[kowhite]

19 minutes ago, Barnack said:

You talk has if it could not happen when it already kind of did.

 

Disney new distributed movie by year

 

2000: 44

2001: 39

2002: 46

2003: 38

2004: 33

2005: 31

2006: 28

2007: 21

2008: 21

2009: 23

2010: 16

2011: 14

2012: 13

2013: 10

2014: 13

2015: 11

2016: 13

2017: 8! 

 

The output got to be less than 25% of what it was early 2000's, movie making, movie that cannot be turned into toys and a section in a attraction park , just movies are almost gone of the current Disney model (could be just a phase, but they stopped making or distributing movies pretty much).

 

Going from around 40 movies to 8, is not literally stopping making them, but is a major drop.

 

In the early 2000's the MPAA studios were releasing around 200 movie a year, if they would have followed Disney it would be down to 40 in 2017.

 

When the people making the movies are the same distributing and showing them, the market can steer a bit less toward free competition among people making movies, some having the giant advantage of controlling there distribution over the others, there is a reason people panicked about studio owning movie theater and made it illegal back in the days:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Paramount_Pictures,_Inc.

 

The studios created the films, had the writers, directors, producers and actors on staff ("under contract" as it was called), owned the film processing and laboratories, created the prints and distributed them through the theaters that they owned

 

Is it illegitimate to feel it is going back to a model looking more to what the old studio system was, to have a completely studio owned from producing to the consumer model by a studio vertically integrated platform ?

 

Now panicking over this is a bit much, not only it is only movies but the studio system movies were not bad, quality will be there like they are at Pixar (the closest to that today), but breaking that model in the 40s is what killed the golden age and brought independent producers and smaller studios, for better and worst.

 

A Netflix type platform would buy from anyone yes they put they<re own product bigger and more frequent icons on your interface but that was mostly it, Disney platform will almost certainly heavily favorise their own stuff if not be 100% exclusive to them.

 

 

 

I wont lie, I only read your number count.

 

So this is a leap of faith.

 

But I sense negativity and concern...

 

So, I agree.

 

* I didn’t read this most of this post so if it supports Ajit Pai or Battlefront 2 or something it’s not my fault.  Mostly.

[aabattery]

2 minutes ago, kowhite said:

 

I wont lie, I only read your number count.

 

So this is a leap of faith.

 

But I sense negativity and concern...

 

So, I agree.

 

* I didn’t read this most of this post so if it supports Ajit Pai or Battlefront 2 or something it’s not my fault.  Mostly.

 

I read slightly more of it than you and I think you're in the clear.

[kowhite]

2 minutes ago, ReyReyBattery said:

 

I read slightly more of it than you and I think you're in the clear.

 

Your gif reminds me...why haven’t they released that AntMan Comic con bit?  That was Gold.

[Fullbuster]

13 hours ago, Barnack said:

Not sure what that has to do with anything, how would you get more Disney animated movie or less after that transaction ?

 

That's not what I expect. That just means this company is less likely to face bankruptcy  in the future, that's all.

[Fullbuster]

13 hours ago, dudalb said:

You really don't get people's concerns about the deal?

There is a lot of "Disney is EVIL" crap in this thread, and now we get some mindless Disney worship. But then, this website often does not much in the way of balanced opinion.

 

I understand people's concerns about this deal, I just don't share them. Sorry!