Discussion in 'Visual Arts' started by Deuce66, Nov 6, 2017.
I lived it!
That's not how Disney works. They're not purchasing property, or products. They're paying the seller for the right to prevent the seller from continuing to make money on their own idea.
Just imagine: you work in a marketplace where your ability to succeed depends on which old idea you dredge up next. Then, somebody comes in and pays your bosses a fee to not come up with that old idea. Your only option is now, to come up with another old idea you still have permission to use. Or - heaven forbid! - come up with a new, untested idea...!
And the talent that made you successful in your business, has just been undermined by your competitor! You've not only lost your ability to succeed for your company, but, you stand to lose that value, to people who - shudder! - may come after your job, with new original ideas!
And so, the only place left you have viable to seek employment is...coming up with that old idea your competitor bought from your company...at your competitor
Ummm, Gorts...? Gonna need more smileys...
I worked for FOX...for decades.
Don’t get “star struck” by any of this BS.
I don't see why not? Since Disney also owns:
20th Century Fox.
They can certainly decide which studios release which films.
The studios are no longer their own autonomous entities. With the exception of films already in production or contractual prior obligations, Disney will most certainly be pulling the strings of these studios, from here on out.
Pull away. It doesn’t guarantee success.
I'm not sure about the others, but I'm 99% sure that isn't true with Pixar. It's still a mostly independently run studio. It was written into the purchase agreement that way, mainly to prevent everyone from Pixar bailing when Disney took over. Sure, Disney can pull the leash and probably fire whomever is in charge, but they have quite a bit of autonomy otherwise. And, really, while they are raking in the cash, why mess with it? Messing with Pixar was the final straw that got Eisner kicked out as CEO.
That's fine. But let Pixar put out a turkey or two and we'll see if the current methods of operation continue.
I didn’t like the original!
Yeah. I know one Poor
Screenwriter still kicking himself
25 years later for selling a script for
$55k that those bastards turned into
The Night at the
Yeah. He’s still pissed.
Real pissed. Gee I wonder who?
It really was not a stellar movie. It was a family holiday movie that milked the kid being left at home all alone role.
There was no surprises for me. The gags were like the our gang comedies I watched in my youth.
Perfect holiday formula movie.
I don’t think a 170 mil loss is that big a loss in the big picture. It’s like one movie bombing, an expensive bomb that all the studios have to deal with now and again. The loss probably includes write-downs on staff reductions, paying off leases of various locations they rent outside of the main studio. Normal stuff. Disney can’t act like it’s no biggie because it makes them look like money wasters, without a clue. They care about the bottom line and all. But some losses were expected as they shutter various divisions, and deal with merging of assets.
Disney has to manage many assets flawlessly to maintain its valuation.
Disney investor financial information can be found here.
Investor Relations - Stock Information, Events, Reports, Financial Information, Shareholder Information - The Walt Disney Company
Total revenue for the 9 months ended June 29/2019 = $50.47 Billion, Net income is $10.0 Billion (19.8%)
A $350 million variance in quarterly performance year over year at Fox, not exactly what one hopes for when you drop $71.3 billion on a acquisition. I understand wanting to acquire properties and content but you have to make the investment worthwhile and right this second it's not looking good long term. I'm not sure why they would squash the development arm at FOX to focus strictly on existing properties.
Disney Flushes Fox Film Development, ‘Redirects’ Strategy After Big Q3 Loss
Disney has confirmed that big changes are coming to the Fox film division, including word that Marvel Studios head Kevin Feige is inheriting Fox’s comic book heroes like the X-Men franchise.
Disney is also axing the majority of the existing Fox film development slate and refocusing output, after the studio posted a $170 million operating loss in Disney’s fiscal third quarter.
Disney CEO Bob Iger told Wall Street analysts on Tuesday during Disney’s quarterly earnings call that the Fox’s superhero titles would move forward under the stewardship of Feige. In addition, the company’s streaming platform Disney Plus will get four big brands from Fox to adapt as straight-to-service content. Those include the Macaulay Culkin holiday franchise “Home Alone,” the historical action romp “Night at the Museum,” the family comedy “Cheaper by the Dozen” and the live-action “The Diary of a Wimpy Kid.”
It’s likely not a coincidence that those properties come from deep in the Fox film vault. Disney chief financial officer Christine McCarthy revealed Fox film was at an operating loss of $170 million for the quarter, and that the division was one of several recently acquired assets to come in “well under our expectations.” In the same quarter last year, Disney estimated that Fox’s film unit generated $180 million in operating income.
Disney pinned this on the performance of “Dark Phoenix,” a flop that represented the latest chapter in the X-Men franchise as fans knew it, which only grossed $65 million domestic on a $200 million budget (overseas grosses were kinder, to the tune of $186 million). Losses were also attributed to marketing costs on upcoming titles (like “Ford v. Ferrari,” which was the only film Iger singled out from the inherited Fox release calendar).
“One of the biggest issues was the Fox studio performance which was well below where it had been and well below where we hoped it would be when we made the acquisition,” Iger said.
While many industry insiders have speculated about the long-term survival of Fox as a standalone content engine — as Marvel, Lucasfilm and Pixar exist under Disney and its top-earning film and animation shops — Iger said he’s assigned his top film lieutenants Alan Horn and Alan Bergman to apply the same “discipline and creative standards” to the division now run by Emma Watts. This means tossing the majority of projects in development, Iger said, taking the label “in a new direction, with an all new development slate that will focus on a select group of properties.”
James Cameron’s sequels to “Avatar” will proceed, as well as a continuation of the “Planet of the Apes” series (no new film in that series has been announced since the release of 2017’s “War for the Planet of the Apes”). Iger also said indie label Fox Searchlight will continue on its current trajectory and also make movies for Disney Plus. Overall, Fox’s film divisions will pare back the total number of releases, he said.
“It will probably take a solid year, maybe two years, before we can have an impact on the films in production. We’re all confident we’re going to turn around the results of Fox live action,” Iger said.
Under Disney, Fox has films dated through the end of 2020, including Steven Spielberg’s take on “West Side Story,” the Amy Adams thriller “Woman in the Window” and Brad Pitt’s astronaut drama “Ad Astra.”
Cate Blanchett and Toni Collette May Join Guillermo del Toro’s Nightmare Alley, And More Movie News << Rotten Tomatoes – Movie and TV News
As Disney was putting the finishing touches on acquiring the 20th Century Fox film properties, the focus from most writers (and rightly so, arguably) was on properties like Fantastic Four, X-Men, and Avatar, but the Fox catalog also includes Alien, Die Hard, Ice Age, and Kingsman. One of the other properties that Fox has had success with since 2011 was the rebooted Planet of the Apes, which as a trilogy had a domestic tally of $532 million (and a worldwide total of over $1.68 billion). Given those numbers, this week’s news is probably a non-story, but it’s still interesting. While talking about Disney’s future plans for their Fox properties this week, CEO Bob Iger for the first time specifically mentioned Planet of the Apes as a priority franchise for the studio. Unfortunately, this news also needs to be phrased in correlation to the rest of Fox’s development slate, which is reportedly being “flushed” to focus on bigger, higher profile titles and less on mid-range movies like this week’s The Art of Racing in the Rain.
I see blue sky animation leaving disney fox in a year or two becoming independent.
And somebody will buy the alien and predator franchise.
Fox Searchlight was a great little label that Disney will absolutely gut because they don't make blockbusters. People don't seem to understand the ramifications of Disney dominating the movie industry and monopolizing the biggest IPs on the planet all at once.
I dunno. If they run a lot of that IP into the toilet, maybe other studios will have the opportunity to create new franchises...
Don't forget ABC-TV, ESPN, A&E, History Channel, Lifetime, Endemol, Sky, Hearst, and The Muppets. And a whole bunch of other stuff...
BINGO! I GOT BINGO!!!! What do I win?
Apes in Disney's hands is alittle "I don't know" with me and I assume most Apes fans. Fox has so much history and I do believe most of Fox's film division is just to fill a streaming service. Thats fine but Im so old school, what about the best video bluray4k hdr software of a incredible catalogue that goes back to the 1930s.
This superhero acquisition from Fox could be "to little to late".
Even though Im an Apes fan Im alittle skittish with this eagerness to exploit Apes, outside of hearing what most oldtimers would like to hear and own, a great new video release like Alien 1979 or something in the vein of the recent " 2001 " restoration/release. The just released LaLa land records CD release is exactly how a video release should be done - Class and Quality..
I dont even know if Disney cares about video releases outside of streaming.
Fox has so much to offer other than an X Men second rate character. Good luck to all involved. John M.
Holy cow, that took a ton of time to design and build!
Actually, I am aware of their many varied interests, I was just confining my comments to ownership in the major movie studios.
I'm expecting this to be an animated series, with every installment another attempt by the wet bandits to get in. Not a remake of the film, more like Phineas & Ferb.
Which was the most polite way of saying Disney won't be letting Rian do anything substantial ever again. He's a consultant now, to people with better track records and experience than himself.
The Last Jedi made $1.33 billion dollars, so I don't think Rian Johnson is exactly on the outs with Disney. But I think when you direct a film that's part of a massive franchise -- whether it's Star Wars or Marvel or WB/DC or whatever -- you can expect that the executives are going to be breathing down your neck with "notes" at every turn. I can tell you that even TV directors generally check with their producers before deciding to move on to the next scene; frequently, the producer will say, "let's do one more and make that other guy more angry" or words to that effect, and the director dutifully does what he or she is told. There is far less freedom in this business than people believe. In some respects, the directors are puppets and expected to do certain things. Some directors do not thrive under those conditions. Not everybody has the freedom of, say, a Quentin Tarantino to do exactly what he wants with zero studio interference.
I would bet (as one example) somebody could write a fascinating book on Phil Lord and Christopher Miller's Solo: A Star Wars Story and how that went off the rails. I think this is a good case of talented directors who chafed under a tight leash, and ultimately the studio fired them and hired somebody who would deliver what they wanted. And it still failed. One wonders what might have happened if they had just released the film that the original guys wanted to make -- even if it had been more of a comedy than a drama. You look at their work on Spiderman: Into the Spider-Verse, and you think, "wow -- these guys have got it goin' on." Maybe sometimes, not making a traditional film is a good idea.
Separate names with a comma.