CNBC: 21st Century Fox holding talks to sell most of the company to Disney
- Thread starter mreddie
- Start date
- Status
Yeah, as I already said, they could easily get away with retconning Deadpool into the MCU.
I don't think this incarnation of Deadpool is a sacred cow. Reynolds has only done one movie (two by the time the buyout happens) and there are alternate takes on Deadpool much closer to the comic interpretation that could make just as compelling movies.
Reynolds is kind of only good at surface level Deadpool. Underlying pathos Deadpool (which imo is best Deadpool, as constantly crazy Deadpool needs to be balanced out) remains to be seen.
Deadpool continuing on as is in the MCU as if nothing happened (other than making a meta joke about it) is the best course of action, I think
It was Marvel Creative Committee that caused Edgar Wright to leave Ant-Man, not Disney.
I'm agreeing with you. I was just elaborating on your refuting Rychu's claim that Disney was meddling in Ant-Man.
People should check out the forums/blogs back in the day. Many were against it because they felt Disney would ruin Marvel.
Are you making a fallacy of an appeal to ignorance? The absence of something does not indicate that it will not happen.
But to answer your question, they have G and PG-ized many fairy tale stories, the story of Pocahontas, Mulan etc. Splash Mountain is a G-ized version of the racist Uncle Remus stories. There is a cottage industry of clickbait articles on the web comparing the Disney version of certain stories to their more gruesome original stories. This may be where some of the concern starts from--much of Disney's history was built on adapting dark fairy tales for a more family friendly audience.
You surely like throwing out the word "fallacy". You are making the t- to use your term - fallacy of assuming something will happen when it hasn't happened yet. The examples you gave are not post acquisition, they are adaptations of fairy tale stories that are public domain, as you indicated.
Sony is worth about 48 billion, the reported cost of Fox is expected to be between 25-40 billion.
I don't generally get mergers, but assume you would need at least be double the worth of what you are buying?
If this does happen what are the odds of Trump's SEC attempting to block it on anti-trust grounds to spite Iger for quitting his media committee?
Unlikely since there is absolutely no anti-trust here that would violate any portion of the law.
Not to mention the Trump campaign is close to Ike Perlmutter of Marvel.
Well that's good The Time Warner AT&T Merger fight seems positively petty though so you never know. There's an argument to be made on the cable and Internet side but not when the warning criteria was selling off CNN.
Owning that much Hulu means they could fold it into DisneyFlix so it can better compete with Netflix.
I don't like throwing out the word fallacy. It was a facetious use of the term. Are you sure there is a "fallacy of assuming something will happen when it hasn't happened yet"? Because the fallacy of the appeal to ignorance is the "fallacy of assuming something will not happen when it hasn't happened yet". Besides, I have not made any such assumption, but I have made an opinionated view--an opinion, not a proposition held out as a factual rule.
Let's just get away from saying the opinions one supports are "facts" and opinions you do not support are "fallacies". We are just discussing our personal opinions here.
Back to the issue at hand, I don't distinguish between treatment of public domain material and acquired IP. And anyway, not all my examples are public domain adaptations--Walt Disney got the rights to the Uncle Remus stories from the Harris family. Bambi was also licensed and Disneyfied.
Sony is worth $60bn. 21st Century Fox is $59bn.
Sony has $20bn of Cash/short-term investments. They are also levered at only ~1.2x.
Theoretically, Sony could issue $40bn of debt to fund the acquisition and would be levered at ~3.9x on a gross debt metric. Investment Grade rating might be in doubt, but they could tell the rating agencies that they plan to de-lever to below 3.0x before 2020, highlight the synergies and the transaction strengthening Sony Entertainment, have no plans on burning through their war chest, etc.
I don't think it will happen (Lionsgate is a lot smaller and gives Sony Starz). But the new CEO of Sony Pictures was a head at Fox, knows the business and has a history of transactions. They aren't expressing interest for shoots and giggles.
There is a difference between near future and a future that exists far beyond my time on this mortal coil. You'll forgive me for limiting all discussions to a near future where an outcome is even remotely possible to foresee.
You weren't the one I was originally having the disagreement with. But to satisfy you, opinions require a form of logic applied to them, informal fallacy is predicated on being able to be determined as having some form of logic but faulty in premise and thus can also apply to opinions. But the fact that you have to reduce this to a philosophical debate on what can and can't constitute a fallacy means that we really can't discuss this any further.
You forgot where I said "I'm not sure that's the case one way or another", so it's not a fallacy when I outright state that we don't have enough evidence to predict an outcome in that regard and it could go either way.
"Flipping" is a term used to describe a purchase of something with the intention to resell it soon after, often with improvements made during one's short ownership, for a profit over the original purchase price. What you're describing is not "flipping", it's simply asset sale. The fact that you don't know the definition of a flip tells me that I can't have a meaningful conversation on this topic with you moving forward. So I won't.
Here, let me help:
http://www./forum/showthread.php?t=372782
An unnamed unfortunate poster said:
Another said:
... and that's just in the first 50 posts!
He might try but they'd have no case as long as Disney avoids the Fox Network, Fox Sports and Fox News as they reportedly are.
I do not think a discussion of "facts" is dependent on time frame. Facts are facts. Given that Universal Studios has had 6 owners in our lifetimes, (it was owned by MCA in 1989, then Matsushita in 1990, then Seagrams in 1995, then Vivendi in 2000, then GE in 2004, then Comcast in 2011), I don't see how it is a fact that Universal will not be sold to Disney, especially since Universal also owns certain Marvel movie rights and Marvel theme park rights.
I am not reducing it to a philosophical debate. You simply can't say an opinion that can go either way is a failure of logic, we are not required to always outright state that there is not enough evidence to predict an outcome either way in order to prevent someone from claiming that an opinion is a failure of logic.
Your original reference to flipping is in response to my comment about selling assets. I said "They can sell off properties (like they did with Miramax)". Your response is that this is flipping. And then when I further explain some situations where they sell off properties (like they did with Miramax), you say what I am describing is not "flipping", it's simply asset sale. That was what I was talking about in the first place! If you want to move the goal posts to talk about making improvements and selling them for profit, that was not what I was talking about in the first place.
This would help Murdoch get extra money for Fox's news arm. He has no reason to cause issues for this kind of deal.
Here's the definition of fallacy and the different ways to use the word:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fallacy
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/fallacy
I digress though, I just thought it was funny how much that word was thrown around in the last couple of pages. And now we are actually discussing the word and I'm being a part of the discussion, so - again - I digress.
I won't check on the validity of the acquired IPs you mentioned, even though licensing is not an acquisition. However, I will take your word for it and thank you for providing the examples. Nothing in the last 70 years or whatever though, which kinda makes the "PG-ized" or "Disnefied" argument silly and redundant, especially since we have much more recent examples with Marvel and Lucas. Even the "R" rated movies from Miramax and Dimension under Disney are much more recent than something from the 40s/50s.
Murdochs seem to want an all cash option. TYO: 6758 (or even worse, SNE(ADR)) are not as attractive as DIS, VZ, or CMCSA.
Sony has a better shot at getting some assets as part of a consortium or from a divestment from the actual buyer.
My last words on the subject.
What you proposed is either:
a) an immediate sales of IP assets after the purchase of a whole set of companies, which would constitute "flipping", would reduce their value, would be a financially irresponsible decision and antithetical to the point of striking such a deal in lieu of purchasing specific IP assets,
b) a sale of IP assets long after the purchase of a whole set of companies, which become devalued from lack of utilization and reduce their value even further, making it even more financially irresponsible and antithetical to the point of striking such a deal in lieu of purchasing specific IP assets, or
c) a purchase of a whole set of companies, utilizing IP assets to increase their value prior to an asset sale further into the future, which you have asserted that Disney would not do with R-rated content in your opinion by virtue of a conflict in perceived brand values.
So either you're suggesting something that will ultimately cost Disney more than necessary or you're discrediting your own held opinion. I assumed you wouldn't be doing the latter and believed you were suggesting option A, because option B is the worst option possible and didn't believe you would argue against yourself by suggesting option C. And honestly, if you are actually arguing against your own opinions, I don't see much need for me to be involved anymore.
I'm just using it the same way Terrell wants to use it. The idea that the absence of something means it will continue to be absent. If opining that the lack of R-Rated films in the past decade indicates there will be a lack of R-Rated films in the future is a fallacy, that same logic should apply to the opinion that because Marvel and Lucas were not "Disneyfied", Fox would not be Disneyfied.
In terms of dictionary definitions, Oxford has defined the term Disneyfy to mean something sanitized or romanticized: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/Disneyfy - it only becomes part of the cultural lexicon because of past practices.
I don't think the examples of Marvel and Lucasfilm apply that well to Fox. The only consistent Fox franchise (in terms of movies constantly being released) is the X-Men franchise, and I doubt they would keep it under the present team where Simon Kinberg and Lauren Shuler Donner decide the overall direction of the franchise--they would more likely just hand it to Kevin Feige at Marvel. Besides Avatar (which is just distribution rights and Cameron calls the shots) the other franchises are just occasional films every once in awhile with no real team in the MCU/F&F/DCEU/X-Men sense. I don't think Miramax is a good example of what Disney does with an acquisition either, they slowly downsized it, closed its main office and merged the operating unit with Walt Disney Studios before selling off the brand and film library.
It isn't financially irresponsible to buy a company and sell off unwanted assets. It happens all the time when that is the only package that the buyer is offering. It happens all the time in big deals as well. Google bought Motorola but sold its factories to Flextronics, sold the cable box business to someone else, sold Motorola to Lenovo, kept the patents.
I am a corporate lawyer and recently I have been working on advising on the sale of assets from two companies just recently bought earlier this year by a Fortune 500 company. I am working on advising another Fortune 500 company on the sale of assets from a company bought last year.
Many posters in this thread and in the media are already talking about such a possibility, for deals not involving Disney. A consortium could create a Holdco company to buy Fox and then the assets from the Holdco are sold off to the various consortium members. Apple formed a consortium with Microsoft, Blackberry and other companies to buy Nortel's patents, which were sold to a company controlled by the consortium called Rockstar and then licenses to the assets from Rockstar were divvied up to the consortium members.
Last edited:
I posted earlier in the thread, but I believe Fox has co ownership of Avatar. It's not just movie distribution rights.
This is what I posted earlier in the thread:
Scullibundo did mention the book The Futurist states Cameron owns the copyrights and not Fox, I haven't checked that book out. Is that where you're basing that claim from? This is actually something of interest because buying the Avatar IP from Fox is worth a lot less if Fox doesn't own it or co own it.
I don't have any specific knowledge except thinking I've read something about it in some article through the years.
In terms of calling the shots, it seems clear that Cameron has a high amount of control over the property as a studio with more control probably would have released a sequel sometime sooner than 11 years later.
Yes but the popular opinion seems to be that they would keep Hulu separate as a "mature" service for the stuff that doesn't fit the "Disney image" like FX shows and R movies. Doesn't mean they couldn't take the stuff that does fit, like Avatar, and make it a wholly Disney brand.
I would be okay with paying for both, personally.
That would be an easy and maybe smart way to do it.
I wonder if the deal would be done before the end of the year, since I don't know how much time these things take lol
At the same Logan was such a great exit from the character for him too :(
I wasn't as I knew that Pixar did fine after the Disney buy out plus I knew that the MCU production value would fair much better with Disney deep pocket and muscle as there is no way that they would have gotten Spider-Man into the MCU without Disney.
He did state that he did wanted to be part of the MCU and was open to the idea should it happen, but I have a feeling when the X-men get folded into the MCU they will do a hard reboot and recast a lot of the characters.
Wouldn't it make more sense for Sony to go after Constantin films gmbh, a company that owns rights to properties that would be of high interest to them (FF, Resident Evil...) and would likely be a much smaller acquisition?
Now, it might be a sensitive get on a cultural level though, and possibly get the German gov involved.
Yeah I read that would be cool but they will probably reboot it.
As they say money talks. I think he could be convinced if you throw enough cash at him. Also it would be a pretty cool project, he might find it intriguing.
No.
Fox News and Fox Sports would remain at 21st Century Fox and would become the main focus of the company.
He doesnt seem like a guy that cares that much about the money to me IDK
I have been over this on neogaf, but I highly doubt Constantin owns the movie rights to FF. They do own the distribution rights in Germany and Austria though. I think a smarter acquisition for Sony would be a game publisher, something like Capcom.
They could just separate them like Netflix does by having a Kids section.
I don't think you need two entirely different services, if they want mass appeal then that'd be the best way to do it.
Except this is Disney. They are making ESPN separate already. It wouldnt be past them to have multiple streaming services.
Iger said there will be no R rated content on Disneyflix at the last investor's call. Don't expect it. PG-13 like Armageddon and Gone in 60 seconds will probably be there though
If they buy Fox and keep the majority Hulu ownership, that's exactly what would happen.
Ah, that's a shame.
Hulu doesn't exist in Australia yet so hopefully they do something for us poor bastards.
Wow, they can say fuck on Punisher? I might actually check it out now
- Status