Can Disney still buy Sony Pictures after the Fox deal?

[Aztec]

Disney wouldn't give up Avatar, and what does that leave? While Alien and Predator are great in theory, neither turn $800 million worldwide combined.

Alien and Predator should go to Universal. They have the most horror characters anyway. If they ever get serious about making a real HORROR universe (not that Dark Universe action/adventure garbage) those two properties would suit them well. In exchange Disney should ask for full Hulk and Namor rights.

 

[Chance Jackson]

Alien, Predator, Die Hard, ID4

none of them worth 900M, but as a bundle? sure

That's more than I would give up. 2-3 of those tops, plus some cash consideration is as far as I would go.

The Last ID4 flopped and was panned, The last Alien didn't do very good and neither did AvP.

Disney would pretty much have to buy Spidy outright and concede those franchises for free so that Sony can "let go" emotionally

 

[Big Bang]

The Last ID4 flopped and was panned, The last Alien didn't do very good and neither did AvP.

So, in other words they are a perfect fit for Sony?

 

[Dasher10]

I really hope that Disney doesn't buy Sony. Fox wanted out of the film business but Sony still want to stay in and I dislike a hostile takeover which limits competition.

 

[Dasher10]

Alien and Predator should go to Universal. They have the most horror characters anyway. If they ever get serious about making a real HORROR universe (not that Dark Universe action/adventure garbage) those two properties would suit them well. In exchange Disney should ask for full Hulk and Namor rights.

Disney should keep AvP. Disney love franchises and they'd easily do better things with Alien than Fox were doing.

 

[ADollarADay]

The Last ID4 flopped and was panned, The last Alien didn't do very good and neither did AvP.

Disney would pretty much have to buy Spidy outright and concede those franchises for free so that Sony can "let go" emotionally

That's because those movies all sucked. Aliens, ID, Predators, etc have tremendous potential and are being mismanaged.

Disney is not going to offer a huge amount of capital + franchises for the remained SM movie rights, that's insane.

IIRC as per the 2011 contract, Marvel can do a live action spiderman tv show. Those rights probably only got strengthened in the 2015 deal. Sony's rights -
albeit nice and sought after - are very limited.

 

[DACrowe]

Disney should keep AvP. Disney love franchises and they'd easily do better things with Alien than Fox were doing.

As Disney has never made a movie like Alien or Predator, I wouldn't expect them to do much with them at all. Especially if analysts' musings that Disney could shutter the Fox studios and save a bundle is in the cards.

 

[metaphysician]

From a legal standpoint, they probably could. From a logical standpoint, it makes no sense.

Acquire or trade some rights for the remaining spiderman rights and call it a day.

Pretty much this. Though I don't think there'd actually be a regulatory hurdle, on the grounds of "Sony is tiny and a trivial part of the industry". I doubt Disney would really care to bother, though, unless their Spider-man deal proves too much trouble.

 

[Big Bang]

Disney should keep AvP. Disney love franchises and they'd easily do better things with Alien than Fox were doing.

I have yet to recover from the first AvP. How they managed to screw up that concept is still bewildering to me.

 

[R_Hythlodeus]

I mean is there value in Sony Pictures outside of Spider-Man? They don't have James Bond anymore.

They never had JB, Bond was always at EON

Come to think of it, there are now three movie studios that are focused on one single IP: EON with Bond, Lucasfilms with Star Wars and Marvel Studios with the MCU. In many ways, Feige is in a very similar position as the Broccolis are when it comes to having the final say and the single vision, BUT with Lucasfilms and MS being bought by a parent companie that give them total freedom Feige doesn't have to spend energy and time to make deals with distribution partners like EON did with MGM and Sony.

I do have the feeling Barbara Broccoli is watching closely what Disney does at the moment

 

[DalekbusterFitz]

I hope not. The Fox deal already spells bad news for the film industry, and Disney buying yet another studio would give them even more of a monopoly.

 

[Spider-Fan]

I hope not. The Fox deal already spells bad news for the film industry, and Disney buying yet another studio would give them even more of a monopoly.

People use this word a lot but don't seem to understand its meaning. Disney does not have a monopoly. There is still too much competition from the like of Universal/Comcast, Sony, Paramount, Netflix, Amazon, etc. to be considered a monopoly. At least in film distribution. They may be the big boys in town, but being the biggest doesn't mean they have a monopoly. Monopoly is when there is no realistic competition within your industry. There are still other big players out there. Now, if they keep buying more companies, then they would eventually become a monopoly. But they were not a monopoly before this deal, nor after.

 

[R_Hythlodeus]

People use this word a lot but don't seem to understand its meaning. Disney does not have a monopoly. There is still too much competition from the like of Universal/Comcast, Sony, Paramount, Netflix, Amazon, etc. to be considered a monopoly. At least in film distribution. They may be the big boys in town, but being the biggest doesn't mean they have a monopoly. Monopoly is when there is no realistic competition within your industry. There are still other big players out there. Now, if they keep buying more companies, then they would eventually become a monopoly. But they were not a monopoly before this deal, nor after.

And buying EON wouldn't change that either. EON produces 1 movie every 4 years or so at the moment

 

[DalekbusterFitz]

People use this word a lot but don't seem to understand its meaning. Disney does not have a monopoly. There is still too much competition from the like of Universal/Comcast, Sony, Paramount, Netflix, Amazon, etc. to be considered a monopoly. At least in film distribution. They may be the big boys in town, but being the biggest doesn't mean they have a monopoly. Monopoly is when there is no realistic competition within your industry. There are still other big players out there. Now, if they keep buying more companies, then they would eventually become a monopoly. But they were not a monopoly before this deal, nor after.

In what way are Universal/Comcast, Sony, Paramount and Warner Bros. realistic competition though? I don't think any of them can compete with Disney now; they simply own too much.

- Sony's film division is struggling.
- Comcast's only real mega-franchise is Jurassic Park/World.
- Paramount's only real mega-franchise is Transformers, and that's losing money now.
- Warner Bros. is failing in the superhero market, and Harry Potter remains their only hugely successful current film franchise. Even then, the Fantastic Beasts films don't make as much money as the main Harry Potter series did.

Anyone who doesn't see this as bad news for the film industry is kidding themselves.

 

[Spider-Fan]

In what way are Universal/Comcast, Sony, Paramount and Warner Bros. realistic competition though? I don't think any of them can compete with Disney now; they simply own too much.

- Sony's film division is struggling.
- Comcast's only real mega-franchise is Jurassic Park/World.
- Paramount's only real mega-franchise is Transformers, and that's losing money now.
- Warner Bros. is failing in the superhero market, and Harry Potter remains their only hugely successful current film franchise. Even then, the Fantastic Beasts films don't make as much money as the main Harry Potter series did.

Anyone who doesn't see this as bad news for the film industry is kidding themselves.

WB is doing fine overall. They crossed 5 billion this year. Universal also has the Fast and Furious series and other huge money makers. All these studios you have named, sans Sony who is hurting outside Spider-Man, have viable franchises and make money. Many of them have released more films this year than Disney or FOX has (some more than both combined). There is more than adequate competition. Let's just not be blinded by superhero grosses and quality.

 

[R_Hythlodeus]

In what way are Universal/Comcast, Sony, Paramount and Warner Bros. realistic competition though? I don't think any of them can compete with Disney now; they simply own too much.

- Sony's film division is struggling.
- Comcast's only real mega-franchise is Jurassic Park/World.
- Paramount's only real mega-franchise is Transformers, and that's losing money now.
- Warner Bros. is failing in the superhero market, and Harry Potter remains their only hugely successful current film franchise. Even then, the Fantastic Beasts films don't make as much money as the main Harry Potter series did.

Anyone who doesn't see this as bad news for the film industry is kidding themselves.

and all of them have the ressources and the opportunities to create new, original IPs (also: Paramount still has Star Trek and M:I, I think) that could potentially be the next big thing. Maybe the deal is enough to finally get them creative again

 

[DalekbusterFitz]

and all of them have the ressources and the opportunities to create new, original IPs (also: Paramount still has Star Trek and M:I, I think) that could potentially be the next big thing. Maybe the deal is enough to finally get them creative again

They won't do that, because people want nostalgia and when new ideas are created they flop. Even The LEGO Movie, which was fantastic, relies on the IPs of LEGO and Batman.

The only time you get original IPs now is for Oscars material. La La Land was one of my favourite films of 2017 but let's face it, it was made purely to get noticed for Oscar nominations.

 

[TheVileOne]

People use this word a lot but don't seem to understand its meaning. Disney does not have a monopoly. There is still too much competition from the like of Universal/Comcast, Sony, Paramount, Netflix, Amazon, etc. to be considered a monopoly. At least in film distribution. They may be the big boys in town, but being the biggest doesn't mean they have a monopoly. Monopoly is when there is no realistic competition within your industry. There are still other big players out there. Now, if they keep buying more companies, then they would eventually become a monopoly. But they were not a monopoly before this deal, nor after.

Netflix and Amazon aren't film distributors. They don't have a film distribution model. They have streaming content delivery and all that, but they aren't releasing films in theaters like Disney. Now one of the major distributors is under the Disney banner. It's a valid argument. Look at how Disney tried to dictate prices for Star Wars: The Last Jedi and how that greatly upset exhibitors.

 

[Spider-Fan]

Netflix and Amazon aren't film distributors. They don't have a film distribution model. They have streaming content delivery and all that, but they aren't releasing films in theaters like Disney. Now one of the major distributors is under the Disney banner. It's a valid argument. Look at how Disney tried to dictate prices for Star Wars: The Last Jedi and how that greatly upset exhibitors.

Streaming is a form of distribution. Even a straight to DVD movie is being distributed, and there are companies that specialize in that form of distribution. Yes, Netflix to this point has not done theater distribution (though Martin Scorsese is attempting to change that), but they still distribute films. Yes, Disney owns another theater distribution company, but arguably the model of distribution is changing from theaters to streaming models. Yes, Disney is being a bully with Star Wars and that is bad for the theater market, I won't disagree there. But, even with the FOX acquisition, there is still plenty of theater competition out there. Now, if they attempt to say buy Sony or Paramount for example, then we may have a different circumstance.

 

[TheVileOne]

Streaming is a form of distribution. Even a straight to DVD movie is being distributed, and there are companies that specialize in that. Yes, Netflix to this point has not done theater distribution (though Martin Scorsese is attempting to change that). Yes, Disney owns another theater distribution company, but arguably the model of distribution is changing from theaters to streaming models. Yes, Disney is being a bully with Star Wars and that is bad for the theater market, I won't disagree there. But, even with the FOX acquisition, there is still plenty of theater competition out there. Now, if they attempt to say buy Sony or Paramount for example, then we may have a different circumstance.

THEATRICAL distribution. Disney has just bought out one of the major theatrical distributors.

 

[Spider-Fan]

THEATRICAL distribution. Disney has just bought out one of the major theatrical distributors.

I understand that and I addressed that in my post as well. Even without FOX, Universal, WB, and Sony are out there on top of Lions Gate and such. I didn't name them, but I did say there was theater distribution elsewhere. Maybe read the whole post next time

 

[TheVileOne]

They never had JB, Bond was always at EON

Come to think of it, there are now three movie studios that are focused on one single IP: EON with Bond, Lucasfilms with Star Wars and Marvel Studios with the MCU. In many ways, Feige is in a very similar position as the Broccolis are when it comes to having the final say and the single vision, BUT with Lucasfilms and MS being bought by a parent companie that give them total freedom Feige doesn't have to spend energy and time to make deals with distribution partners like EON did with MGM and Sony.

I do have the feeling Barbara Broccoli is watching closely what Disney does at the moment

Yeah but they were still a co-producer and distributor. They didn't own the film rights, but they were still the company bringing it to the masses.

Technically, Paramount doesn't own Transformers either, not the brand at least. It still belongs to Hasbro. That's just what I mean by comparison.

 

[TheVileOne]

I understand that and I addressed that in my post as well. Even without FOX, Universal, WB, and Sony are out there on top of Lions Gate and such. I didn't name them, but I did say there was theater distribution elsewhere. Maybe read the whole post next time

20th Century Fox was in top five bracket of market share. This sale effectively gives Disney the largest control over the market share, and it could enable them to put other competitors out of business. The concerns are valid. Lionsgate's market share this year was about 8.7 percent. Theoretically, this Disney the largest slice of the market share pie.

Yes there is distribution elsewhere. Just for example, Annapurna just made that deal to release the next James Bond movie. That could significantly bump up that company's profile. But for now, Annapurna is not yet a serious competitor to the majors.

The potential for this deal to hurt exhibitors and theater owners is real.

I get it. We all want Fantastic Four and X-Men at Marvel. I want that too. There are a lot of benefits to this deal. But the way it can hurt other businesses is a real valid concern as well.

Also, a lot of people are going to be losing their jobs soon as well. That's reality of corporate mergers.

 

[Tony Stark]

They are going to want Spider-man back 100%. I don't think Disney cares about the rest of Sony. So long as they can continue making MCU Spider-man and have their current licensing agreement on merchandising, there's really no need for Marvel to get Sony.

 

[R_Hythlodeus]

Also, a lot of people are going to be losing their jobs soon as well. That's reality of corporate mergers.

Please let Simon Kinberg be among them. And Roland Emmerich. And Sing... oh, Singer is gone already anyway