Disney/FOX Acquisition Thread

[Scott W.]

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.

That was a stupid thing to say on my behalf thinking about it, obviously there is exclusivity.

It's going to be interesting to see what happens with the Simpsons area in USF. Add in Kidzone, MIB and Fear Factor and you have a connected piece of land that occupies 22 acres.

 

[RFRees]

That was a stupid thing to say on my behalf thinking about it, obviously there is exclusivity.

It's going to be interesting to see what happens with the Simpsons area in USF. Add in Kidzone, MIB and Fear Factor and you have a connected piece of land that occupies 22 acres.

Obviously Universal should sell that land so Bell at Universal Apartments can expand.

 

[Paulio]

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.

Universal and Disney parks aren't in the same arena. Universal can have characters like the Blues Brothers, HHN, a pernament haunted maze (e.g. the Mummy, House of Horrors, and Walking Dead), and the Simpsons area, with no issue of parents complaining how offensive they are, because they aren't really exactly a family-friendly park. Disney, however, had to remove the Alien ride and the original Snow White dark ride due to parent complaints and still to this day hasn't have a single adult-oriented Halloween event like Knott's Scary Farm and Universal's HHN.

The Simpsons are pop culture icons in America, but there's no way they are equally comparable to GOTG and other MCU characters which are formalic and are suitable towards families and children, and I have yet to think of a singly edgy, adult-oriented character at a Disney park. Disney doesn't simply do that, it's clearly about truly maintaining their image and true character that Walt Disney himself worked on.

 

[Scott W.]

Universal and Disney parks aren't in the same arena. Universal can have characters like the Blues Brothers, HHN, a pernament haunted maze (e.g. the Mummy, House of Horrors, and Walking Dead), and the Simpsons area, with no issue of parents complaining how offensive they are, because they aren't really exactly a family-friendly park. Disney, however, had to remove the Alien ride and the original Snow White dark ride due to parent complaints and still to this day hasn't have a single adult-oriented Halloween event like Knott's Scary Farm and Universal's HHN.

The Simpsons are pop culture icons in America, but there's no way they are equally comparable to GOTG and other MCU characters which are formalic and are suitable towards families and children, and I have yet to think of a singly edgy, adult-oriented character at a Disney park. Disney doesn't simply do that, it's clearly about truly maintaining their image and true character that Walt Disney himself worked on.

Tower of Terror is probably the scariest ride in all of the parks.

The haunted mansion literally shows a man who has hanged himself.

Splash Mountain is based on a movie that’s deemed racist and culturally irrelevant.

I have never deemed The Simpson’s to be edgy or offensive.

You also have to remember that IPs are always dumbed down and softened for a theme park audience to stop any offence being taken. Is anybody offended by The Simpson’s at Universal? It’s probably my most hated ride at the resort and outside of it being a terrible ride, I don’t think it would a step too far Disney’s morals to have that same level in their parks.

 

[Paulio]

Tower of Terror is probably the scariest ride in all of the parks.

The haunted mansion literally shows a man who has hanged himself.

Splash Mountain is based on a movie that’s deemed racist and culturally irrelevant.

I have never deemed The Simpson’s to be edgy or offensive.

You also have to remember that IPs are always dumbed down and softened for a theme park audience to stop any offence being taken. Is anybody offended by The Simpson’s at Universal? It’s probably my most hated ride at the resort and outside of it being a terrible ride, I don’t think it would a step too far Disney’s morals to have that same level in their parks.

Dude, you're comparing apples and oranges. The Tower of Terror is based on the 1960s CBS TV show Twlight Zone (and as a result, the IP is fit to be fun for everyone) and the Haunted Mansion is not scary and fit in with the Disney's formula, especially in the lines the way their animated shorts/movies were from the 1930s to 1950s. In fact, the Haunted Mansion could have been scarier similiar to the original Snow White ride at WDW, but it really wasn't because it would be deemed offensive to families. Also, Splash Mountain was based on Song of the South that fit in with the Disney formula that even kids can watch, due to the 1946 film being a product of its time.

None of that, however, compares with the Simpsons, and even if they're dumbed down, they're characters you can see on TV making edgier and adult-like jokes and antics, as Universal doesn't have a family-friendly image like Disney is. Also, saying that The Simpsons not to be edgy or offensive is your opinion, but the general consensus of the Simpsons content indiciate it's not, that's why you don't see the show at Disney Channel or Cartoon Network or Nick, but rather on FOX or FX.

 

[RFRees]

None of that, however, compares with the Simpsons, and even if they're dumbed down, they're characters you can see on TV making edgier and adult-like jokes and antics, as Universal doesn't have a family-friendly image like Disney is. Also, saying that The Simpsons not to be edgy or offensive is your opinion, but the general consensus of the Simpsons content indiciate it's not, that's why you don't see the show at Disney Channel or Cartoon Network or Nick, but rather on FOX or FX.

People have been debating for decades whether or not the Simpsons were family friendly or not. It was the same with comic books (debate for almost a hundred years now). At this point, most agree that certain comics are friendly friendly (but not all), and that you can take your kids to see Avengers, and yet....




There are certain themes from the Marvel franchise that are specifically adult, but they leave this out when marketing towards kids/families... you won't see a Captain America action figure cursing.

Yes the Simpsons are more adult that your average Disney kids IP, but Simpsons is not a kids IP, it's on the same level as Marvel. Simpsons also has adult themes, yet they are often marketing toward kids, including kids toys, clothes, etc.



Universal has already done the hard part - they established a precedence that "the Simpsons are fit for a theme park." Now it's not even a question, "should Simpsons be brought to a theme park?" might have been a legitimate question decades ago, but today it's a no brainer (duh!).

 

[Scott W.]

Dude, you're comparing apples and oranges. The Tower of Terror is based on the 1960s CBS TV show Twlight Zone (and as a result, the IP is fit to be fun for everyone) and the Haunted Mansion is not scary and fit in with the Disney's formula, especially in the lines the way their animated shorts/movies were from the 1930s to 1950s. In fact, the Haunted Mansion could have been scarier similiar to the original Snow White ride at WDW, but it really wasn't because it would be deemed offensive to families. Also, Splash Mountain was based on Song of the South that fit in with the Disney formula that even kids can watch, due to the 1946 film being a product of its time.

None of that, however, compares with the Simpsons, and even if they're dumbed down, they're characters you can see on TV making edgier and adult-like jokes and antics, as Universal doesn't have a family-friendly image like Disney is. Also, saying that The Simpsons not to be edgy or offensive is your opinion, but the general consensus of the Simpsons content indiciate it's not, that's why you don't see the show at Disney Channel or Cartoon Network or Nick, but rather on FOX or FX.

The Haunted Mansion still has a hanging dead body. That's worse than anything on The Simpson's ride. The Tower of Terror is a scarier ride (Mentally) than anything at Universal. Seriously, what part of The Simpson's ride do you find offensive or would be too much for a Disney park?

The Simpsons is prime time tv, it's shown at all hours of the day. If it was deemed offensive, it would be on late night. Song of the South has been deemed more offensive, you can call it a 'product of it's time' if you want but the fact is, it's banned and hasn't had a home release in the US.

Do you want to know why you don't see The Simpsons on any of those channels and only on Fox? Because Fox made the show and has the rights to show it. It's not like a tv channel can just pick and choose whatever show they want.

Edit: I forgot about this. You say that The Simpsons isn’t on The Disney Channel but it’s coming to Disney+



They could have put it on Hulu but they must obviously think that it fits into the Disney family.

 

[Paulio]

People have been debating for decades whether or not the Simpsons were family friendly or not. It was the same with comic books (debate for almost a hundred years now). At this point, most agree that certain comics are friendly friendly (but not all), and that you can take your kids to see Avengers, and yet....

View attachment 10587


There are certain themes from the Marvel franchise that are specifically adult, but they leave this out when marketing towards kids/families... you won't see a Captain America action figure cursing.

Yes the Simpsons are more adult that your average Disney kids IP, but Simpsons is not a kids IP, it's on the same level as Marvel. Simpsons also has adult themes, yet they are often marketing toward kids, including kids toys, clothes, etc.



Universal has already done the hard part - they established a precedence that "the Simpsons are fit for a theme park." Now it's not even a question, "should Simpsons be brought to a theme park?" might have been a legitimate question decades ago, but today it's a no brainer (duh!).

Unless MCU are mainly within the lines of Deadpool and Logan or the Simpsons, you really cannot compare MCU to the Simpsons because they're two different contents that appeal to differences audiences that don't fit with one's other core audiences. As I said, MCU can get away from using bad language and some death scenes, but as a whole, MCU is cookie-cutter and formalic in nature which is suitable and geared towards families and kids. Rremember, Disney bought Marvel to appeal to boys and want to crank out as many Marvel merchadises as possible to its core audiences--families and childrens. They make most of the money off it and it's that success that they keep on going with that and ignore R-rated and risk taking contents for almost a decade like Deadpool or Logan or even Blumhouse horror movies.

You also can't compare Universal to Disney parks, because again they're different. While both parks mainly appeal to families and children, only one has a family-friendly image they have to uphold repeatedly and the other does not. That's why USH can have a permanent haunted attraction all year round, but Disney cannot (as demonstrated by the Alien Encounter and original Snow White attractions which were removed because of parents complaining how scary they were for kids).

It's also the reason Universal has the Simpsons area (an adult-focused oriented content), but not a single such similiar one at a Disney park. The Simpsons's core audiences are not families and children (mainly people who likes clear, clean cut good vs. bad guy like straight out of a kids' cartoon), but for teenagers and adults. I don't see them getting into a Disney park which is always been family and kid friendly in nature, and neither Disney have plans for any meets and greets from Fox adult-animated shows.

The Haunted Mansion still has a hanging dead body. That's worse than anything on The Simpson's ride. The Tower of Terror is a scarier ride (Mentally) than anything at Universal. Seriously, what part of The Simpson's ride do you find offensive or would be too much for a Disney park?

The Simpsons is prime time tv, it's shown at all hours of the day. If it was deemed offensive, it would be on late night. Song of the South has been deemed more offensive, you can call it a 'product of it's time' if you want but the fact is, it's banned and hasn't had a home release in the US.

Do you want to know why you don't see The Simpsons on any of those channels and only on Fox? Because Fox made the show and has the rights to show it. It's not like a tv channel can just pick and choose whatever show they want.

All I'm saying is it's really a bad, poor comparision to bring up HM and ToT as comparable to the Simpsons. Compared to Alien Encounter and the original Snow White ride at WDW, the Haunted Mansion and ToT as a whole aren't really edgy or explicitly scary enough. They have horror elements, but really suitable for kids (like the Haunted Mansion movie in 2003). As a kid, I can adjust well into the Haunted Mansion and ToT at Disneyland and DCA respectively, but definitely not the Mummy or Van Helsing maze at USH because of the dark, graphic, and scary nature of these mazes. Sure, there are some dead bodies hanging and the like in HM, but it fits well within the Disney's general formula (and along the lines of their animated shorts/movies from the 1930s to 1950s) and not to the level of HHN where they are scary and dark atmosphere something and gore and graphic characters everywhere. It's the reason why Universal can have HHN and Disney cannot.

Also, regardless of whether it's on primetime or not, The Simpsons's core audiences are not families and children (mainly people who likes clear, clean cut good vs. bad guy like straight out of a kids' cartoon or Muppets), but for teenagers and adults. If they are, they would be as equally as comparable to Spongebob, Johnny Bravo, Scooby Doo, Disney channel shows, but they're not. The primary reason the Simpsons runs at a later as well as FOX and the evening to night on FX is because of its focus on adults. Futurama and King of the Hill suffered the same thing, but because their shows are more violent, more graphic, and more sexual, they had to explicitly point out they weren't meant for children and families specifically.

 

[quinnmac000]

Lets remember some Disney fans were offended by a troll farting glitter being a walk around character at Universal, and Disney had to get rid of the animal poop brownies because of some parents complaining.

 

[Mad Dog]

Lets remember some Disney fans were offended by a troll farting glitter being a walk around character at Universal, and Disney had to get rid of the animal poop brownies because of some parents complaining.

The animal poop brownies were just in poor 'taste'. :bolt:

 

[Nick]

Unless MCU are mainly within the lines of Deadpool and Logan or the Simpsons, you really cannot compare MCU to the Simpsons because they're two different contents that appeal to differences audiences that don't fit with one's other core audiences. As I said, MCU can get away from using bad language and some death scenes, but as a whole, MCU is cookie-cutter and formalic in nature which is suitable and geared towards families and kids. Rremember, Disney bought Marvel to appeal to boys and want to crank out as many Marvel merchadises as possible to its core audiences--families and childrens. They make most of the money off it and it's that success that they keep on going with that and ignore R-rated and risk taking contents for almost a decade like Deadpool or Logan or even Blumhouse horror movies.

You also can't compare Universal to Disney parks, because again they're different. While both parks mainly appeal to families and children, only one has a family-friendly image they have to uphold repeatedly and the other does not. That's why USH can have a permanent haunted attraction all year round, but Disney cannot (as demonstrated by the Alien Encounter and original Snow White attractions which were removed because of parents complaining how scary they were for kids).

It's also the reason Universal has the Simpsons area (an adult-focused oriented content), but not a single such similiar one at a Disney park. The Simpsons's core audiences are not families and children (mainly people who likes clear, clean cut good vs. bad guy like straight out of a kids' cartoon), but for teenagers and adults. I don't see them getting into a Disney park which is always been family and kid friendly in nature, and neither Disney have plans for any meets and greets from Fox adult-animated shows.



All I'm saying is it's really a bad, poor comparision to bring up HM and ToT as comparable to the Simpsons. Compared to Alien Encounter and the original Snow White ride at WDW, the Haunted Mansion and ToT as a whole aren't really edgy or explicitly scary enough. They have horror elements, but really suitable for kids (like the Haunted Mansion movie in 2003). As a kid, I can adjust well into the Haunted Mansion and ToT at Disneyland and DCA respectively, but definitely not the Mummy or Van Helsing maze at USH because of the dark, graphic, and scary nature of these mazes. Sure, there are some dead bodies hanging and the like in HM, but it fits well within the Disney's general formula (and along the lines of their animated shorts/movies from the 1930s to 1950s) and not to the level of HHN where they are scary and dark atmosphere something and gore and graphic characters everywhere. It's the reason why Universal can have HHN and Disney cannot.

Also, regardless of whether it's on primetime or not, The Simpsons's core audiences are not families and children (mainly people who likes clear, clean cut good vs. bad guy like straight out of a kids' cartoon or Muppets), but for teenagers and adults. If they are, they would be as equally as comparable to Spongebob, Johnny Bravo, Scooby Doo, Disney channel shows, but they're not. The primary reason the Simpsons runs at a later as well as FOX and the evening to night on FX is because of its focus on adults. Futurama and King of the Hill suffered the same thing, but because their shows are more violent, more graphic, and more sexual, they had to explicitly point out they weren't meant for children and families specifically.

1.) You seem to be insinuating The Simpsons are on the level of an R-rated franchise, when in reality, it’s TV-14, the equivalent of PG-13.

2.) I’d love to see the mob that protests about the scary Simpsons!

The Simpsons aren’t edgy at Universal, wouldn’t be at Disney and they really just aren’t edgy in general. A simple M&G, which is all I suggested as a possibility, could EASILY happen.

 

[Paulio]

1.) You seem to be insinuating The Simpsons are on the level of an R-rated franchise, when in reality, it’s TV-14, the equivalent of PG-13.

2.) I’d love to see the mob that protests about the scary Simpsons!

The Simpsons aren’t edgy at Universal, wouldn’t be at Disney and they really just aren’t edgy in general. A simple M&G, which is all I suggested as a possibility, could EASILY happen.

Then Disney should have Vincent Vega and Jules Winnfield in M&G in its parks long ago back then when Disney was high rolling with Miramax and Dimension Films with their R-rated movies in the 90s. Well that didn't happen, because these characters aren't really role models kids at Disney parks can look up to. The Blues Brothers come from an R-rated movie, but have appear at several Universal parks. It's the same with the Simpsons and Family Guy due to their nature of the shows (and even some recent show episodes that I even find cringy as an adult).

Also, TV-14 specifically indiciates that it's not for children and families specfically due to the nature of the show, so that argument proves my point (in contrast with Disney channel movies and shows which are either TV-G or PG and cookie-cutter and fit for whole families). It's not that the Simpsons at theme parks aren't phsysically edgy themselves, it's that characters appearing in the parks come from edgier shows (whether in form of adult-oriented sitcoms or graphic, gory horror shows) and whether they should be role models that certain core audiences can look up to, especially the fundamental differences between Disney and Universal parks.

Would the Simpsons likely appear in a simple M&G at a Disney park? Well, that I have yet to think of a character from an edgier content at a Disney park especially as recently and with the way Disney is going atm, I think not, so we have to agree to disagree.

 

[Nick]

The characters/movies you’re comparing The Simpsons to is quite literally hilarious.

To keep it simple, for The Simpsons to be on the level of an R-rated film, it would be TV-MA. I really don’t know what *point* it is that you say you’re trying to prove because you are all over the place.

Yes though, agree to disagree because there isn’t a middle ground here clearly.

 

[Paulio]

The characters/movies you’re comparing The Simpsons to is quite literally hilarious.

To keep it simple, for The Simpsons to be on the level of an R-rated film, it would be TV-MA. I really don’t know what *point* it is that you say you’re trying to prove because you are all over the place.

Yes though, agree to disagree because there isn’t a middle ground here clearly.

But you're comparing a TV rating to a movie rating, which isn't really the same thing. Obviously, kids aren't going to pay individually to watch a TV show like they do in movies, and they stay home most of the time (sometimes watching movies every week or so), so content tends to be different than movies. TV-14 is synonymous known in the line between PG-13 and R-rating which means it's definately not suitable for families and kids. TV contents have warnings on what is suitable or not suitable whereas they don't do that constantly in movie theaters anymore because you have to pay and know the ratings ahead of time.

I brought up edgier characters like the ones from Pulp Fiction in compare to that of Universal's Blues Brothers to demonstrate a point. For all purposes, both Disney and Universal have their own core audiences and identities and that's what made them successful in the first place. By alienating your core audience, not only you lose money, but your own identity as well, and it's something certain companies have to protect. So maybe it's likely we'll never see the Simpsons at a Disney M&G simply because the model Disney parks operates for decades.

 

[Nick]

The Blues Brothers is still a ridiculous comp to Pulp Fiction. The Blues Brothers show at USF only exists because it can be a street show. It’s an R-rated movie, but in the park it’s pretty much G-rated.

 

[Paulio]

The Blues Brothers is still a ridiculous comp to Pulp Fiction. The Blues Brothers show at USF only exists because it can be a street show. It’s an R-rated movie, but in the park it’s pretty much G-rated.

So is Pulp Fiction, but you don't see them at a Disney park, not once. You can say the same thing about putting them at a M&G in a Disney park (like Hollywood Studios or DCA) and dumbing them down as the Blues Brothers have. Well, obviously Disney didn't do so because it would be deemed inappropriate and out of place at a Disney park. However, Vincent Vega, Mia Wallace, and Jules Winnfield would have been a perfect fit for Universal especially at Mel's Drive-in (due to the dance scene in the movie at a 50s retro restaurant).

 

[Nick]

So is Pulp Fiction, but you don't see them at a Disney park, not once. You can say the same thing about putting them at a M&G in a Disney park (like Hollywood Studios or DCA) and dumbing them down as the Blues Brothers have. Well, obviously Disney didn't do so because it would be deemed inappropriate and out of place at a Disney park. However, Vincent Vega, Mia Wallace, and Jules Winnfield would have been a perfect fit for Universal especially at Mel's Drive-in (due to the dance scene in the movie at a 50s retro restaurant).

It’s insane to me that we’re talking about Pulp Fiction as if it were a viable theme park property.

It’d also be hard for Disney to use the characters even if they wanted since Disney sold Pulp back to the Weinstein’s in 2009. And yet Universal hasn’t cared to grab it for theme park use.

 

[zg44]

All of the Simpsons is going to be on Disney+.

That should absolutely settle any discussion of how Disney views it; they view it as a family friendly property.

 

[RFRees]

Simpsons movie is PG-13.

Anyone who says Simpsons is not marketed toward families with children is just wrong. Please refer to the Burger King kids toy commercial. Those aren't teens, those are little children. Whether or not you think it should be marketed toward children is different than whether it is.

There is debate whether little children should watch the Simpsons, but there's also debate whether Marvel is too violent for children. The same parents who wouldn't take their kids to see a Marvel movie (PG-13) or Star Wars (PG-13) would be the ones keeping them from seeing Simpsons at the movie theater.

Universal does have rides/attractions that Disney could never have. However, Simpsons is not one of them.

Not everything at Disney has to be specifically for little children, Star Wars and Indiana Jones are perfect examples.



Also I'm mostly joking by bring this up but... if you want to talk about appropriateness at Disney...

 

[Nick]

Lets remember some Disney fans were offended by a troll farting glitter being a walk around character at Universal, and Disney had to get rid of the animal poop brownies because of some parents complaining.

I personally never heard any complaints from Disney fans about Guy and if someone like me who is in way too deep in theme park twitter and interwebz isn’t hearing it, it was probably an extremely vocal minority.

As for the animal poop brownies, well.... it’s not necessary appetizing when you see “elephant poo” as an option and I’d bet they didn’t sell well.