Disney/FOX Acquisition Thread

[JungleSkip]

It's speculation, but realistically, why would Comcast continue operating them? There's no need for two major studios and two independent branches. Maybe they'd operate like New Line does at WB?

I just don't see Universal getting a ton of IP/assets and then not making more movies for them.

Would universal be able to add more mutant ride and attractions if Comcast bought fox? Like a full on wolverine/x-men attraction or something? Or is there something in the contract that would limit that?

They could do that now.

 

[Porkchop]

I just don't see Universal getting a ton of IP/assets and then not making more movies for them.



They could do that now.

Hmm why aren’t they? Do they have to get permission from fox?

 

[JungleSkip]

Hmm why aren’t they? Do they have to get permission from fox?

No. Fox has no jurisdiction over the theme park usage of the X-Men, outside of (I would assume) Universal wouldn't be able to use the movie versions of the characters.

 

[Porkchop]

No. Fox has no jurisdiction over the theme park usage of the X-Men, outside of (I would assume) Universal wouldn't be able to use the movie versions of the characters.

Great - thanks I didn’t know that.

 

[quinnmac000]

Comcast acquiring Fox would be even worse than Disney because that leaves a major hole in the film industry. At least Disney intends on operating Fox similarly to how they're operating now; Universal has no benefit from having 20th Century Fox and Fox Searchlight, so they'll essentially be shuttered. Theaters will be playing less movies as a result. It's a bad deal regardless, but outside of Sky, Comcast gains very little from this.

You do know Disney produces the least number of films yearly for theatrical release? Whereas Universal owned studios produced films that they didn't even distribute (Baby Driver, We are Your Friends, Grimsby, etc).

Working Title Films - Wikipedia

I do believe 20th Century Fox may become a specialty studio rather than a full blown studio as now but I also think that will happen under Disney as well.

Fox Searchlight is going to get the Working Title films/Focus Feature deal, as long as they keep it under 35 million, Universal will leave them alone to greenlight whatever they want. Universal's Indies are allowed to operate and greenlit any project they wish at a certain price point. I mean Working Title which Universal owns produced Baby Driver and is producing other films with other companies while mantaining the rights.

 

[Paulio]

Comcast acquiring Fox would be even worse than Disney because that leaves a major hole in the film industry. At least Disney intends on operating Fox similarly to how they're operating now; Universal has no benefit from having 20th Century Fox and Fox Searchlight, so they'll essentially be shuttered. Theaters will be playing less movies as a result. It's a bad deal regardless, but outside of Sky, Comcast gains very little from this.

I respectfully disagree and @quinnmac000 backs up his point as well. Having both major film studios would be really beneficial to Comcast; eliminating one of them is not optional nor reasonable at all especially after Comcast acquires Fox. It would require reshuffling the Fox studios in order to accommodate the new assets into Comcast/NBCUniversal's portfolio. Comcast has no reason to decimate the history of 20th Century Fox especially given its long-term history given to Hollywood, especially if Universal wants to use 20th Century Fox's brand for its own parks. Fox's assets could be an additional boon to Universal's plan for a 3rd theme park in Orlando as well.

Besides, Disney is already dominating in the movie industry and BO thanks to WDA, Pixar, Marvel, and Star Wars. Comcast's BO doesn't even compare and is 3rd place behind Warner Bros. and Disney. Time for Comcast to have their own spotlight to shine and a chance to compete as well. After all, competition breed quality and it's really beneficial for both Comcast and Disney in the long run.

No. Fox has no jurisdiction over the theme park usage of the X-Men, outside of (I would assume) Universal wouldn't be able to use the movie versions of the characters.

They actually can use the movie characters from the X-Men though, nowhere in the 1994 contract says that Universal should only use the comic book versions of the characters.

 

[JungleSkip]

They actually can use the movie characters from the X-Men though, nowhere in the 1994 contract says that Universal should only use the comic book versions of the characters.

Except Fox definitely owns the movie likenesses of the film characters, so no, Universal could not use them without permission.

 

[ThemeParks4Life]

You do know Disney produces the least number of films yearly for theatrical release? Whereas Universal owned studios produced films that they didn't even distribute (Baby Driver, We are Your Friends, Grimsby, etc).

Yes, and that's not my point. Iger has said in the past he intends to let Fox and Searchlight to continue operating as they currently do, so there won't be a hole in the market. Fox doesn't have many active franchises outside of X-Men and Avatar; what happens to all the original movies they make? Would they behave like New Line, or would Comcast shutter them?

 

[Paulio]

Except Fox definitely owns the movie likenesses of the film characters, so no, Universal could not use them without permission.

Except Fox doesn't own the theme park rights to X-Men, Marvel does, and Universal is the only theme park operator to hold onto the Marvel rights. It's the reason why Fox has to get permission from Disney/Marvel to co-produce Legion and the Gifted for the FX or Fox networks.

Marvel as the owner of all of its properties has a final say over the Marvel products used at IOA's MSHI, not Fox. After all, as you said, Fox owns the X-Men as a licensee as a film right, not as a 100% owner, so Universal has to get permission from Marvel to use characters from the X-Men movies instead. The fact is, the 1994 contract clearly states Universal can make any ride based off whatever property they want and the only permission they need to make changes/add Marvel attractions is from Marvel itself, not Fox.

 

[JungleSkip]

Except Fox doesn't own the theme park rights to X-Men, Marvel does, and Universal is the only theme park operator to hold onto the Marvel rights. It's the reason why Fox has to get permission from Disney/Marvel to co-produce Legion and the Gifted for the FX or Fox networks.

Marvel as the owner of all of its properties has a final say over the Marvel products used at IOA's MSHI, not Fox. After all, as you said, Fox owns the X-Men as a licensee as a film right, not as a 100% owner, so Universal has to get permission from Marvel to use characters from the X-Men movies instead. The fact is, the 1994 contract clearly states Universal can make any ride based off whatever property they want and the only permission they need to make changes/add Marvel attractions is from Marvel itself, not Fox.

Nah man. Universal definitely could not use the likenesses of the Fox X-Men movie characters in a theme park ride without Fox's permission. (Not that they would do that anyway)

 

[Paulio]

Nah man. Universal definitely could not use the likenesses of the Fox X-Men movie characters in a theme park ride without Fox's permission. (Not that they would do that anyway)

• B. Marvel will reasonably cooperate in making information, artwork, archive material, key personnel, etc. available to [Comcast] in order that [Comcast] can creatively develop THE MARVEL UNIVERSE and exploit its rights hereunder. [Comcast] will reimburse Marvel for its reasonable costs in this regard, including time of non-executive personnel and their reasonable travel expense.
• 
  
• C. Whenever Marvel has “reasonable” rights for rejection of approval hereunder, the basic criteria to be used by Marvel may include inconsistency with (i) basic story line, (ii) the powers, (iii) basic personality traits, (iv) physical appearance (including clothing or costume), and/or (v) living habitat or environment relating to such character as portrayed in Marvel’s exploitation of such character in comic books or other products for the particular time period being depicted by [Comcast].
• 
  
• D. [Comcast] shall take appropriate action, as directed by Marvel to protect all copyrights and trademarks in connection with the uses granted hereunder, including in-park uses, merchandise and packaging.

• E. Marvel represents and warrants that it is the proper party to grant the rights contained in this Agreement and that such grant is effective and binding.

Nowhere the 1994 contract says anything about Universal getting permission from Fox. Every Marvel character always belongs to the Marvel company, no matter what, and Universal can make whatever versions of Marvel characters they want. It's effectively binding on all parties even after Disney acquired Fox.

 

[JungleSkip]

• B. Marvel will reasonably cooperate in making information, artwork, archive material, key personnel, etc. available to [Comcast] in order that [Comcast] can creatively develop THE MARVEL UNIVERSE and exploit its rights hereunder. [Comcast] will reimburse Marvel for its reasonable costs in this regard, including time of non-executive personnel and their reasonable travel expense.
• 
  
• C. Whenever Marvel has “reasonable” rights for rejection of approval hereunder, the basic criteria to be used by Marvel may include inconsistency with (i) basic story line, (ii) the powers, (iii) basic personality traits, (iv) physical appearance (including clothing or costume), and/or (v) living habitat or environment relating to such character as portrayed in Marvel’s exploitation of such character in comic books or other products for the particular time period being depicted by [Comcast].
• 
  
• D. [Comcast] shall take appropriate action, as directed by Marvel to protect all copyrights and trademarks in connection with the uses granted hereunder, including in-park uses, merchandise and packaging.

• E. Marvel represents and warrants that it is the proper party to grant the rights contained in this Agreement and that such grant is effective and binding.

Nowhere the 1994 contract says anything about Universal getting permission from Fox. Every Marvel character always belongs to the Marvel company, no matter what, and Universal can make whatever versions of Marvel characters they want. It's effectively binding on all parties even after Disney acquired Fox.

So you seriously think that Universal could open "Deadpool: The Ride" using Ryan Reynolds and the aesthetic from the Deadpool films tomorrow, with absolutely no need to get permission from Fox? Lol. Okay.

 

[Paulio]

So you seriously think that Universal could open "Deadpool: The Ride" using Ryan Reynolds and the aesthetic from the Deadpool films tomorrow, with absolutely no need to get permission from Fox? Lol. Okay.

You make the claim, but you never have any evidence to back up your argument. Unless proven otherwise, then the 1994 Marvel contract is the only evidence that could refute that. BTW, when you say "Lol. Okay" you make yourself look pretty immature, therefore you make my point much more valid.

 

[Nick]

You do know Disney produces the least number of films yearly for theatrical release? Whereas Universal owned studios produced films that they didn't even distribute (Baby Driver, We are Your Friends, Grimsby, etc).

Working Title Films - Wikipedia

I do believe 20th Century Fox may become a specialty studio rather than a full blown studio as now but I also think that will happen under Disney as well.

Fox Searchlight is going to get the Working Title films/Focus Feature deal, as long as they keep it under 35 million, Universal will leave them alone to greenlight whatever they want. Universal's Indies are allowed to operate and greenlit any project they wish at a certain price point. I mean Working Title which Universal owns produced Baby Driver and is producing other films with other companies while mantaining the rights.

I'm trying to understand your point... Disney produces the least amount of films yearly so therefore FOX is better off in the hands o Comcast, who already produces more films? I really don't care how this deal ends up, but your point makes no sense.

Although for the studio that produces the least they make an awful lot of money, don't they.

 

[JungleSkip]

You make the claim, but you never have any evidence to back up your argument. Unless proven otherwise, then the 1994 Marvel contract is the only evidence that could refute that. BTW, when you say "Lol. Okay" you make yourself look pretty immature, therefore you make my point much more valid.

Fox has the films copyrighted. Copyright protects the manner in which ideas are expressed. In this case the aesthetic and actors in which a character is conveyed. Universal couldn't build a Deadpool ride styled after the movies and starring Ryan Reynolds because those things are copyrighted by Fox.

I'm trying to understand your point... Disney produces the least amount of films yearly so therefore FOX is better off in the hands o Comcast, who already produces more films? I really don't care how this deal ends up, but your point makes no sense.

Although for the studio that produces the least they make an awful lot of money, don't they.

The point was someone claimed that Comcast buying Fox would result in more movies being made, when Disney already makes a significantly less number of films than other studios do now. So it makes little sense to extrapolate that Disney buying Fox wouldn't also result in less movies being made.

 

[Nick]

The point was someone claimed that Comcast buying Fox would result in more movies being made, when Disney already makes a significantly less number of films than other studios do now. So it makes little sense to extrapolate that Disney buying Fox wouldn't also result in less movies being made.

Well that's certainly right in a way. Disney makes few movies, but they are all big budget blockbusters that make a ton of money.

I think if Disney had Fox, they would let them be aside from the Marvel stuff. Hell, they may let Marvel stay with Fox as they may not want to bring X-men into the MCU. Either way though, it's two big studios (Disney, Universal) that would get to control a studio that releases a large amount of movies per year.

 

[JungleSkip]

Well that's certainly right in a way. Disney makes few movies, but they are all big budget blockbusters that make a ton of money.

Sure, but the budget and revenue of the films is irrelevant to the point being made.

I think if Disney had Fox, they would let them be aside from the Marvel stuff. Hell, they may let Marvel stay with Fox as they may not want to bring X-men into the MCU. Either way though, it's two big studios (Disney, Universal) that would get to control a studio that releases a large amount of movies per year.

Right. I don't think there's a difference between the two outcomes in regards to the number of films released by Fox per year.

 

[Brian G.]

You make the claim, but you never have any evidence to back up your argument. Unless proven otherwise, then the 1994 Marvel contract is the only evidence that could refute that. BTW, when you say "Lol. Okay" you make yourself look pretty immature, therefore you make my point much more valid.

Skip is right, though.

 

[Mad Dog]

The Stock Market didn't like this news. Comcast dropped 5 1/2 points to apx. $30 a share.

 

[ThemeParks4Life]

Fox has the films copyrighted. Copyright protects the manner in which ideas are expressed. In this case the aesthetic and actors in which a character is conveyed. Universal couldn't build a Deadpool ride styled after the movies and starring Ryan Reynolds because those things are copyrighted by Fox.



The point was someone claimed that Comcast buying Fox would result in more movies being made, when Disney already makes a significantly less number of films than other studios do now. So it makes little sense to extrapolate that Disney buying Fox wouldn't also result in less movies being made.

My point was that Universal has very little to gain from acquiring Fox's studios. Fox has 16 2018 releases (11 from the main studio/5 from Searchlight), and Universal has 28 releases (17 from the main studio/11 from Focus). Comcast already produces nearly double what Fox does. If Fox behaved like New Line under Comcast, there would only be a few movies each year; for example, there are only five New Line movies coming out this year while WB is releasing 16 under the main studio. Universal isn't going to suddenly double their output because they bought a new studio. There's very little financial reason for them to make use of the studios other than to remove a major competitor from the industry. Comcast is more interested in Hulu and the foreign companies than the studios for a good reason. Of course, if Disney buys Fox, the industry loses a major company, but there won't be a reduction in the number of films released because Fox/Searchlight will fill the void that Touchstone and Miramax once filled. It's either that or Iger is lying