I'm sure everyone's read the stories today. 

Disney bought Fox entertainment for more than $50 million in stock. Fox will keep its news and sports channels, and Disney gets almost everything else, including the film rights to X-Men and Fantastic Four.

In addition, Disney picks up some non-Marvel brands of sigificance, including The Simpsons, Avatar and Kingsman. Disney also adds Fox's 30 percent ownership of Hulu to its own 30 percent share, for a majority share.

So, what do y'all think?

Views: 589

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I think that if there is a fee, it would be waived. I mean, it is basically one division of the company helping out another division of the same company. Or if one division paid a fee that fee would probably get paid back some other way. I have seen some companies do some weird and strange stuff either to avoid some law or for tax purposes.

Luke Blanchard said:

Luke Blanchard said:

Also, Marvel might have to share the profits with other divisions of the company, making its bottom line look worse.

I didn't put that last point clearly. I figure there's a division of Disney that licenses the Disney characters, and if Marvel did those comics it would have to pay a fee, even though it's another division of the conglomerate. So for Marvel it might be more profitable to do Squirrel Girl than Mickey Mouse even if Mickey Mouse would sell more.

Yeah, I've seen a couple of those.

Richard Willis said:

The Baron said:

I've been seeing gags about the Alien queens being Disney princesses now.

Did anyone create a meme of a Xenomorph wearing princess drag?

I did a search. My favorite so far.

Now you got me wanting to see Buffy in the princess outfit! lol

Read an interesting Forbes column (that I can't find now) speculating on the fate of Fox TV shows. Those created by Fox production go to Disney, but four shows on Fox -- Gotham, Lucifer, and two others -- are owned by other studios and only air on Fox. 

The writer speculates that Disney will wipe the slate clean of shows that aren't hits or proprietary -- which means The Gifted, which Disney now owns and is part of the X-franchise, is probably safe. The Simpsons is safe, too.

Weirdly, this article speculated that Lucifer and Gotham are probably safe, at least in the short term. Disney doesn't own the Fox channel, which airs news and sports, but does own the bulk of its scripted shows. So Fox channel is going to need a lot of programming, and pronto. Murdoch reportedly wants to fill that air with reality shows, but it takes time to develop those shows, sign the contracts, and so forth. Fox probably won't have a full lineup in place until the 2019 season. 

Which means they'll need whatever programming they can get their hands on for 2018. Lucifer and Gotham are owned by Warner Bros., so are unaffected by the Disney deal, and are already in place. Fox need do nothing and they've got those two hours filled. So they'll probably do nothing.

So Lucifer and Gotham are probably locks for Season 4 and Season 5, respectively. Those could be the concluding seasons, or WB could shop them elsewhere for 2019 -- like The CW, for example. Or they might continue on Fox until they eventually expire of natural causes, if that's what Murdoch decides to do.

As noted, this is all speculation. But it makes sense. Plus, it informed of the status of shows like Lucifer and Gotham, which I didn't know. I had wondered if they were part of the Disney deal, but they are not.

If Gotham got moved to the CW then that would open doors for some curious tie-ins to the other super hero shows still on the CW in 2019.  Maybe Supergirl goes back through time and meets the young Bruce Wayne?

Captain Comics said:

Read an interesting column (that I can't find now) speculating on the fate of Fox TV shows. Those created by Fox production go to Disney, but four shows on Fox -- Gotham, Lucifer, and two others -- are owned by other studios and only air on Fox. 

The writer speculates that Disney will wipe the slate clean of shows that aren't hits or proprietary -- which means The Gifted, which Disney now owns and is part of the X-franchise, is probably safe. The Simpsons is safe, too.

Weirdly, this article speculated that Lucifer and Gotham are probably safe, at least in the short term. Disney doesn't own the Fox channel, which airs news and sports, but does own the bulk of its scripted shows. So Fox channel is going to need a lot of programming, and pronto. Murdoch reportedly wants to fill that air with reality shows, but it takes time to develop those shows, sign the contracts, and so forth. Fox probably won't have a full lineup in place until the 2019 season. 

Which means they'll need whatever programming they can get their hands on for 2018. Lucifer and Gotham are owned by Warner Bros., so are unaffected by the Disney deal, and are already in place. Fox need do nothing and they've got those two hours filled. So they'll probably do nothing.

So Lucifer and Gotham are probably locks for Season 4 and Season 5, respectively. Those could be the concluding seasons, or WB could shop them elsewhere for 2019 -- like The CW, for example. Or they might continue on Fox until they eventually expire of natural causes, if that's what Murdoch decides to do.

As noted, this is all speculation. But it makes sense. Plus, it of the status of shows like Lucifer and Gotham, which I didn't know. I had wondered if they were part of the Disney deal, but they are not.

Sounds like Gotham and Lucifer are safe for sure. If the Fox network decides to drop one or both, Warner Bros, after all, is the "W" in The CW. 

Captain Comics said:

Read an interesting Forbes column (that I can't find now) speculating on the fate of Fox TV shows. Those created by Fox production go to Disney, but four shows on Fox -- Gotham, Lucifer, and two others -- are owned by other studios and only air on Fox. 

The writer speculates that Disney will wipe the slate clean of shows that aren't hits or proprietary -- which means The Gifted, which Disney now owns and is part of the X-franchise, is probably safe. The Simpsons is safe, too.

Weirdly, this article speculated that Lucifer and Gotham are probably safe, at least in the short term. Disney doesn't own the Fox channel, which airs news and sports, but does own the bulk of its scripted shows. So Fox channel is going to need a lot of programming, and pronto. Murdoch reportedly wants to fill that air with reality shows, but it takes time to develop those shows, sign the contracts, and so forth. Fox probably won't have a full lineup in place until the 2019 season. 

Which means they'll need whatever programming they can get their hands on for 2018. Lucifer and Gotham are owned by Warner Bros., so are unaffected by the Disney deal, and are already in place. Fox need do nothing and they've got those two hours filled. So they'll probably do nothing.

So Lucifer and Gotham are probably locks for Season 4 and Season 5, respectively. Those could be the concluding seasons, or WB could shop them elsewhere for 2019 -- like The CW, for example. Or they might continue on Fox until they eventually expire of natural causes, if that's what Murdoch decides to do.

As noted, this is all speculation. But it makes sense. Plus, it informed of the status of shows like Lucifer and Gotham, which I didn't know. I had wondered if they were part of the Disney deal, but they are not.

Used to be, the networks were forbidden from producing and owning the shows they aired, save for news, sports and public affairs programming. They were obligated to get them from independent producers -- the likes of Jack Webb (Dragnet, Adam-12), Quinn Martin (The Streets of San Francisco, The F.B.I.), Steven Bochco (Hill Street Blues, NYPD Blue), Sherwood Schwartz (Gilligan's Island, The Brady Bunch), Marcy Carsey and Tom Werner (The Cosby Show, Roseanne), Stephen J. Cannell (The Rockford Files, The A-Team), Susan Harris (Soap, Benson, The Golden Girls), and others.

The rules banning the networks from being in the production business went away during the Reagan era. Ever since then, it's been every network's dream to fill its lineup only with shows that come from its own production arm. No network has yet been able to totally pull that off.

Why? Because There's no way to grab all of talent out there and bring it under your roof. Some men and women have great ideas that just don't fit on your network. Others have great ideas but are locked into deals elsewhere. Others like being independent. Others have concepts, but the network won't make a place for that show because it has something there already. Etc., etc., and so forth. 

Will broadcast TV even exist in the future, as opposed to internet-transmitted TV?

Luke Blanchard said:

Will broadcast TV even exist in the future, as opposed to internet-transmitted TV?

Sure. The airwaves are a public resource.

That's a good question. But here's some food for thought.

Network is still the 800-lb gorilla, getting 10 times the viewership but none of the publicity.

How many here think Fox News has the best ratings for news on TV? It doesn't, but that's the impression you get from headlines on the internet. Fox has the best ratings for cable news, beating out CNN and MSNBC. But the ABC, CBS and NBC nightly news shows get easily 10 times Fox's numbers. You just don't hear about it.

Another example from our neck of the woods is Supergirl. CBS dropped the show because her numbers weren't good enough. But they were good enough for The CW, which has a much lower profit bar than a network. Most of the CW's superhero shows are hits by non-network standards, but don't get good enough numbers for network. 

How many comics-based shows are there on TV? More than a dozen. How many are on one of the three big networks? None. They pull in genre fans, which is good enough for cable, but not enough of the mundanes to make a profit on the three big networks. 

Millennials and tech-savvy older viewers are finding new ways to watch TV that don't include broadcast or cable-fed broadcast. And we don't watch the big three's scripted sitcoms, because we find them stupid. But the vast majority of Americans jut pay their cable bill and watch Lester Holt over dinner. And they're fine with that.

That being said, how long will that pertain? If enough people find alternative ways to watch TV, it will bolster those avenues and weaken the networks. Weaken those networks enough and advertisers will start bailing. Then you'll see a mad scramble for all that money. And even now streamers like Netflix and Hulu are finding ways to avoid advertising altogether, a kneecap to the network business model.

I think the hand-wringing over the networks is premature -- honestly, they're making a lot of money. (How much is a one-minute ad on the Super Bowl these days?) But I do think there are clouds on their horizon. I just don't know how long it will take the storm to get here, and if it will be strong enough to break their collective back.

What do you guys think?

Luke Blanchard said:

Will broadcast TV even exist in the future, as opposed to internet-transmitted TV?

It is a Federal law that the local TV stations must broadcast a signal thru the airwaves. I live in the Houston area and pick up most of the tv stations broadcast thru my viewing area. Now of course knowing the Federal  government this could change in the future?



Luke Blanchard said:

Will broadcast TV even exist in the future, as opposed to internet-transmitted TV?

Reply to Discussion

RSS

Welcome!

No flame wars. No trolls. But a lot of really smart people.The Captain Comics Round Table tries to be the friendliest and most accurate comics website on the Internet.

SOME ESSENTIALS:

RULES OF THE ROUND TABLE

MODERATORS

SMILIES FOLDER

TIPS ON USING THE BOARD

FOLLOW US:

OUR COLUMNISTS:

Groups

© 2018   Captain Comics, board content ©2013 Andrew Smith   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service