The Rebooted "Keep Hope Alive" (that the rights can revert back to Marvel) Thread - - - - - Part 14

[Big Bang]

Exactly. Disney might throw their weight around saying "Nyah! We got Star Wars, Indiana Jones, and everything Marvel and all those things you want, so you better pay up!" If it is within DOJ's power to get something like that in writing, they should.

Also, in terms of dealmaking, nothing means squat if it's said verbally. It has be done in writing.

Yep. The question is how long of a commitment they will agree to. Obviously the DOJ will go for as long as they reasonably can. The obvious question is how long is "reasonable".

I for one (as a fan of the company), don't think it would unreasonable to get Disney to agree to a minimum of 10 years in writing that they will not attempt to do. I also feel that they should not able to have a majority stake in Hulu.

 

[Dark Raven]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/disney...heaters-on-star-wars-the-last-jedi-1509528603

Disney controlling all this media and content also means they can control the price and they can lay down heftier demands for the content for theatrical business owners and consumers with their new subscription services.

I mean they can come up with any number of reasons I'm sure. Just like they did with Microsoft over a decade ago.

Dark Raven, I'm not saying they necessarily will. But the possibilities are definitely there.

I understand about all other media content. But I'm talking just about the MCU and the Fox Marvel characters. Why would the DOJ think that Marvel would have a monopoly on all Marvel characters when these ARE Marvel characters to begin with?

If everything else were stopped, I don't see why Fox Marvel couldn't still go to Disney.

 

[TheVileOne]

Even if that's all the DOJ wants, hypothetically, I don't think that's unreasonable, especially if it means controlling the media rights to all the Star Wars movies on home video, plus all the film rights to those Marvel properties and characters.

But my other concern is we don't know how the DOJ is going to treat this deal at all yet.

I understand about all other media content. But I'm talking just about the MCU and the Fox Marvel characters. Why would the DOJ think that Marvel would have a monopoly on all Marvel characters when these ARE Marvel characters to begin with?

If everything else were stopped, I don't see why Fox Marvel couldn't still go to Disney.

Dark Raven, I mean that's not my concern. If this deal only involved an exchange of Marvel assets, that would probably make things a heck of a lot simpler where DOJ is concerned.

Also, if DOJ stopped this, I'm not sure it would allow the Marvel assets to return anyway. Then again, no way of knowing for certain.

 

[Big Bang]

I understand about all other media content. But I'm talking just about the MCU and the Fox Marvel characters. Why would the DOJ think that Marvel would have a monopoly on all Marvel characters when these ARE Marvel characters to begin with?

If everything else were stopped, I don't see why Fox Marvel couldn't still go to Disney.

They are rational enough to understand Disney and Marvel already own those properties and that Disney acquiring the film rights has no legal barrier to it. I'd be surprised if this gets brought up as any more than a footnote. There is no monopoly in regards to property that is already theirs. Besides, they can simply point to DC and say "See, no monopoly on Comic Book films". Quality of said films aside.

You just cannot be accused of a monopoly of a product you own. Think back to when Microsoft was sued by the DOJ. They weren't accused of having a monopoly of Windows, but with Windows of the PC Operating System market and how that product was used as a tool of a monopoly.

If they were being accused of using Marvel films to push DC out of the comic book film market then it would be altogether different matter, but that just isn't the case. Public statement by Kevin Feige and company all speak to the contrary.

The only thing that would keep the rights from coming back is if the deal itself doesn't go through and there was no periphery agreement between the parties. (If no deal, rights can still be sold separately, etc. etc.). They'd stay with Fox pending any other agreements or contractual barriers and so on.

 

[WeaponXCII]

Big thanks for such in-depth for such in-depth responses, everyone! I'm definitely going to read over the responses a couple more times to make sure I get everything, but I definitely understand things somewhat better now.

The only thing that would keep the rights from coming back is if the deal itself doesn't go through and there was no periphery agreement between the parties. (If no deal, rights can still be sold separately, etc. etc.). They'd stay with Fox pending any other agreements or contractual barriers and so on.

This was going to be my next question, so thanks for clearing that up!

Oh, and Willie, I definitely see now why you're not getting your hopes up until there's an official statement!

 

[Dark Raven]

Big thanks for such in-depth for such in-depth responses, everyone! I'm definitely going to read over the responses a couple more times to make sure I get everything, but I definitely understand things somewhat better now.



This was going to be my next question, so thanks for clearing that up!

Oh, and Willie, I definitely see now why you're not getting your hopes up until there's an official statement!

Willie doesn't want to get up about anything because there have been too many times in the past when he's been knocked back down. It's understandable.

 

[Iceman]

I don't see why companies should be prevented from gaining market share by consistently putting out products that are received very well and thereby growing into a monster while competitors fail through their own incompetence. Preventing that is anti-consumer itself. It is only when companies abuse the power that that grants that they should be punished harshly. I don't think the studios should be able to attach conditions to cinemas to their films being shown at all.

 

[Big Bang]

Willie doesn't want to get up about anything because there have been too many times in the past when he's been knocked back down. It's understandable.

It is. In any situation it is always wise to keep yourself in check. Better to go in with low expectations and be surprised, than high expectations and be disappointed.

After everything I've read thus far, I at least, am feeling pretty good about this right now.

 

[ADollarADay]

I also feel that they should not able to have a majority stake in Hulu.

On what basis?

 

[TheVileOne]

On what basis?

Possibly on the basis that Disney is planning its own premium subscription streaming service. Conflict of interests?

 

[Big Bang]

I don't see why companies should be prevented from gaining markets share by consistently putting out products that are received very well and thereby growing into a monster while competitors fail through their own incompetence.

There are reasonable reasons why. Disney could in theory abuse its size and power. Oversight is supposed that keep that from happening. Though healthy competition can also have a hand in it. To a degree unsuccessful companies should not be overly sheltered.

Preventing that is anti-consumer itself.

Keeping Marvel from retrieving its rights here would be that indeed.

It is only when companies abuse the power that that grants that they should be punished harshly. I don't think the studios should be able to attach conditions to cinemas to their films being shown at all.

Nor should the status quo be kept in place artificially. I think Fox pulling out is just the start of major changes to the industry.

 

[Big Bang]

Possibly on the basis that Disney is planning its own premium subscription streaming service. Conflict of interests?

Pretty much my thoughts. The only sense in having control of Hulu along with its other service is just to deny its competition that front. Hulu would essentially be a second fiddle to its primary service. I'd prefer more competition on this front.

 

[WeaponXCII]

tl;dr. Deal is agreed. Deal is announced. Deal is submitted to Department of Justice for review. Deal is approved (or not). Deal closes and assets are transferred. Disney assumes control.

Another one: How can I find out when the deal will be submitted? Does the DOJ hold these reviews at fixed intervals? Do we have an idea of when this particular review could take place? What would be the first (i.e., earliest) source that I could find an official release of this review? Or would our traditional comic book movie news outlets be a better option? Basically, I just want to keep as close of an eye as possible on all of the developments.

 

[ADollarADay]

Possibly on the basis that Disney is planning its own premium subscription streaming service. Conflict of interests?

That's not really a conflict of interest and not really a reason to block it.

Pretty much my thoughts. The only sense in having control of Hulu along with its other service is just to deny its competition that front. Hulu would essentially be a second fiddle to its primary service. I'd prefer more competition on this front.

I understand you guys' concerns, but I don't think it would be 2nd fiddle to Disneyflix. Different audiences, I would think. Plus Iger reiterated how bullish he is on Hulu. I don't think it's that much different than Cinemax and HBO being owned by TWX.

 

[Iceman]

There are reasonable reasons why. Disney could in theory abuse its size and power. Oversight is supposed that keep that from happening. Though healthy competition can also have a hand in it. To a degree unsuccessful companies should not be overly sheltered.

Keeping Marvel from retrieving its rights here would be that indeed.

Nor should the status quo be kept in place artificially. I think Fox pulling out is just the start of major changes to the industry.

I do understand looking at things carefully when companies merge or takeover other companies and get power in that way. But if for eg some billionaire geek sets up his own filmmaking company and starts turning out 10/10 film non-stop and charges them at cost because he's interested in the art and not the money, and as a result takes over the industry - that is not a situation where the monopoly he might achieve as a result is a concern to me. Abuse of monopoly power should be punished severely to totally discourage it. I'm talking outright banning products so that no one would even consider ripping off the consumer whether they have a monopoly or not.

Competition is often called king for the consumer but in many cases for me has made a lot of the things I like worse. I can't have all my games and gaming friends on one platform (which means I hardly play with one big group of friends at all as I can't buy every major game twice) and certain format wars have rendered whole film libraries of mine totally redundant due to another format winning.

In the market for what I call luxury products like video games and films you don't have to buy anything so there is limited tolerance for hikes in prices or drops in quality anyway even if there is only one provider. If all films that came out were 4/10 or cost $200 to watch I (and I imagine a fair few others) would stop watching films altogether. It's of course different when there is a monopoly on a vital drug or food product.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

I think they’re putting a LOT of effort making sure the structure of this deal will fly, and they’ll probably have a Plan A, Plan B, and Plan C - with Plan C being something so innocuous that it will be sure to get through.

I just want an announcement. Once we have an announcement, the details will get worked out and Fox will never butcher the FF again.

 

[Big Bang]

Another one: How can I find out when the deal will be submitted?

They usually post cases they are working: https://www.justice.gov/atr

Does the DOJ hold these reviews at fixed intervals?

Their reviews usually aren't public. Their filings are though.

Do we have an idea of when this particular review could take place? What would be the first (i.e., earliest) source that I could find an official release of this review?

Depends on when the parties file it. The DOJ link above is the best resource for that.

Or would our traditional comic book movie news outlets be a better option? Basically, I just want to keep as close of an eye as possible on all of the developments.

I honestly wouldn't put much trust in what they say about it unless they have a reputable source they are referencing. For the time being, CNBC is a pretty good source.

 

[Iceman]

I think they’re putting a LOT of effort making sure the structure of this deal will fly, and they’ll probably have a Plan A, Plan B, and Plan C - with Plan C being something so innocuous that it will be sure to get through.

I just want an announcement. Once we have an announcement, the details will get worked out and Fox will never butcher the FF again.

Makes sense to do that and have a plan for all expected scenarios.

 

[Dark Raven]

I think they’re putting a LOT of effort making sure the structure of this deal will fly, and they’ll probably have a Plan A, Plan B, and Plan C - with Plan C being something so innocuous that it will be sure to get through.

I just want an announcement. Once we have an announcement, the details will get worked out and Fox will never butcher the FF again.

They'll have a Plan 9 as well, but it will come from outer space.

 

[Iceman]

I honestly wouldn't put much trust in what they say about it unless they have a reputable source they are referencing. For the time being, CNBC is a pretty good source.

Agreed on that. I work in this industry (but not in M&A or on this sector) and have seen some really ignorant things published on both comic book and gaming news sites which show very little appreciation of stock price movements. About 5 times I've seen articles saying a stock has gone through the roof or tanked because of some CBM or gaming news where the move has been the same intraday move you'd expect on any given day and where the company is far too big for it to matter or where there has been much more significant news for the company going through. I'd only take something from a CNBC, Bloomberg, Reuters or equivalent as confirmation. I feel even respected non-financial publications can be prone to jump the gun on things like this as it's not their arena.

 

[InCali]

They'll have a Plan 9 as well, but it will come from outer space.

Wood not be too sure about that.

 

[Astro13Zombie]

They'll have a Plan 9 as well, but it will come from outer space.

Wood not be too sure about that.

 

[Big Bang]

I understand you guys' concerns, but I don't think it would be 2nd fiddle to Disneyflix. Different audiences, I would think. Plus Iger reiterated how bullish he is on Hulu. I don't think it's that much different than Cinemax and HBO being owned by TWX.

I just find that it would be better for overall competition. Just my 2 cents.

In the market for what I call luxury products like video games and films you don't have to buy anything so there is limited tolerance for hikes in prices or drops in quality anyway even if there is only one provider. If all films that came out were 4/10 or cost $200 to watch I (and I imagine a fair few others) would stop watching films altogether. It's of course different when there is a monopoly on a vital drug or food product.

The DOJ tend to be more general in the "best interest of the consumer" overall. In this case either way i don't see any obstructions that should stop them. The entertainment industry needs to go through a transformative phase as it modernizes.

 

[Iceman]

The DOJ tend to be more general in the "best interest of the consumer" overall. In this case either way i don't see any obstructions that should stop them. The entertainment industry needs to go through a transformative phase as it modernizes.

Oh right, good to know.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

They'll have a Plan 9 as well, but it will come from outer space.

Wood not be too sure about that.