not how that works...for Oscars and those awards, it must have theatrical release...it could get Emmy's but HBO pretty much has that on lock.
Disney/FOX Acquisition Thread
- Thread starter AlexanderMBush
- Start date
-
Signing up for a Premium Membership is a donation to help Inside Universal maintain costs and offers an ad-free experience on the forum. Learn more about it here.
not how that works...for Oscars and those awards, it must have theatrical release...it could get Emmy's but HBO pretty much has that on lock.
All it needs is 4 weeks in theaters and then Hulu has themselves a great awards movie. Disney would love being able to promote that if they truly plan on having Hulu as the more Adult oriented service.
The Irishman is on Netflix but will be going for awards this year.
Remember Hulu and Disney+ is supposed to go global....if you start angering exhibitors in certain countries, the effects are negative which Netflix has done and it has and will effect their awards standing. Disney already angered enough exhibitors with the strict regulations and access to their films, they aren't going to waste that to push a movie that will mainly be on a streaming service.
Secondly, European countries like France already make rules against distributing films for awards by making it unable to be put on streaming services for 3 years.
German Independent Exhibitors Upset Over Netflix Film in Berlin Competition – Variety
European Exhibitors Slam Venice for Continuing to Embrace Netflix – Variety
At CinemaCon, Exhibitors Applaud Spielberg vs. Netflix | IndieWire
Spanish Exhibitors Call on Netflix to “Adapt” to Traditional Windows System | Hollywood Reporter
So then France is out of luck for seeing that movie. Oh well. The rest of the world will still see it and Disney will win awards, which I’m sure they would love to tout, since they are a studio that doesn’t win the big awards.
- Jun 21, 2016
- 3,802
- 8,322
It wasn't worth the money they were bidding on it. Fox, had too many negatives, which are now becoming even more apparent, and too few positives. Fox, like Paramount, were the sick men of the film industry. Losses from Fox could easily have crept into less expenditures for a new park and present park expansions.
- Jun 21, 2016
- 3,802
- 8,322
Are you a large shareholder of Comcast?
Outside of the last sentence, it's just an odd stance to take.
They're a multi-billion dollar media conglomerate whose entire existence is to make you consume. Comcast is completely interchangeable with Disney in that regard. They aren't your friend.
At least Comcast would stay more adult-themed and not make things "Disney-fied".
I care much more about the content and the art then which parasite media company makes the money.
Last edited:
I think Fox's content was greatly over valued.
It wasn’t worth the $71B Disney ended up paying, but it was worth Disney’s initially accepted offer of $52B, especially after selling off the RSNs.
Comcast just came and drove up the price, but that’s the business and Disney valued Fox’s assets enough to pay the money.
Really wonder if Sky didn't actually came into play, and only Fox was, Comcast could try and make a bid against Disney for the famed studio.
They have tremendous IPs such as X-Men, The Simpsons, Family Guy, King of the Hill, Bob's Burger, Shape of Water, American Horror Story, American Crime Story, Home Alone, Atlanta, Fargo, Die Hard, Predator, Alien, Big Momma's House, 28 Days Later, Avatar, and Planet of the Apes. On the top of that, they have FX Networks (in which Simpsons are exclusively at home to) and owning a stake in National Geographic Partners. No way Sony and Paramount have that much valuable assets in comparision.
Fox was going to sell anyways, and it comes down to Disney or Comcast. The assets went to a former with a family-friendly image rather than the latter who is not and can pump out edgier contents. Also, you would never see the Simpson characters and other products too edgy for Disney at Disneyland like Universal does, because Disney parks are entirely family-friendly and fairytale in nature and are the only major theme parks not to churn out Halloween mazes.
Homer Simpson who is notorious for strangling Bart and yelling "why you little" at him? Bart Simpson who gains infamy for saying "eat my shorts" as a way to rebel against authority? Sorry, but it's not really the kind of role model kids at Disney parks would look up to, especially the Simpsons and Family Guy are notorious for their edigier, raunchy contents unlike MCU and Star Wars. After all, Disney is extremely protective of its family-friendly image including its parks., and with the way they're going right now, it will not happen.
They are already letting The Simpsons have a panel at D23 and they think they are “family” enough to put them on Disney+.
And I’m willing to take that bet.
But D23 and Disney + are different than translating Fox edgy characters into a family-friendly theme park, where most guests might not care about the two things I mentioned in the first sentence. There's no way that you would meet a character from the edgier content at Disney parks nowadays that you would entirely expect from Universal instead. Disney tried Xenomorph in the 1990s and that didn't translate well to parents and children, just like the original Snow White Ride at WDW which was changed into a less scary one in late 1994 because of parents and kids complaining how scary it was.
There’s literally nothing scary about the ‘look’ of the Simpsons though. They actually look bright and cheery. As a simple Meet and Greet they work and would sell merch. I could easily see them meeting in Hollywoodland at DCA.
Also, the Simpsons haven’t been edgy in about 20 years.
With the MCU getting away with jokes like this for years now, I'm sure The Simpsons is considered safe ground for Disney.
My point is that characters who are unusual with Disney values wouldn't likely to make it to the Disney parks for various reasons. They're way too edgy for M&G at Disney parks, Disney parks are designed to be fairytale and family-friendly in nature, and the Simpsons are known for adult and raunchy jokes and antics. It can be weird and awkard to insert characters who might not fit into the Disney's core portfolio. As far as Simpsons not been edgy, they still are though.
Saying the ship is dirty is different than Simpsons making adult and subtle dirty jokes that parents might find horrifying if they actually find out. MCU--even though they go along the lines of being brutal and dirty sometimes--is within the formula of making it as broadly appealing to families and children as possible. Homer Simpson, Fry, Hank Hill, and Peter Griffin aren't really exact role models kids can look up to; they're known for making crude, fart, insensitive, and subtle adult jokes and antics, as well as showing nudes in these cartoons as well. Not exactly a type of bunch you would see at a Disney park.
....me thinks you didn’t get the joke.
The GotG joke is an example is PERFECT example of a “subtle dirty joke”.
I'm assuming that the Simpsons theme park rights for Universal are nothing like the Marvel deal.
Could the Simpsons be present in both parks?
I've started watching the Simpsons again and I find it hilarious how many jabs they take at Disney:
I also think Disney doesn't have a good enough sense of humour to poke fun at itself like that.
I guess I was more thinking whenever the contract runs up. By then, The Simpsons will mostly just be known for being iconic to American pop culture than anything else. Also, it's not like Disney has to reference the jokes at themselves if they did a M&G eventually. Just bring the characters out like any other M&G.
People love meeting the characters at Universal and there's nothing offensive about them.
Book with our Travel Partners
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
The Future of Lost Continent (Poseidon Fury closing May 9)- Latest: Skipper Justin
