Disney/FOX Acquisition Thread

[quinnmac000]

Netflix Makes International Distribution Deal For NBC’s ‘Good Girls’ | Deadline
NBC being the first of the Big 4 alphabet networks to distribute a series overseas via streaming service ('Good Girls' with Netflix) is a pretty good indication that they aren't that interested in owning their own global streaming service (as Disney is indicating with this Fox purchase).


Sure, but none of that meets the threshold for the DoJ to sue over a Disney purchase of Fox's entertainment assets.

Here's why: Disney is being extremely devious in doing this purchase before launching its global streaming services. If it had already launched its streaming services, then there might be more serious anti-trust problems given that Disney's global streaming services are expect to get to 100+ million subscribers rapidly and become a major market share participant. Combining those theoretical Disney streaming services with 60% of Hulu in 2025 would be an absolute no-go in my opinion. But by doing it before, Disney can probably get the deal through without divesting Hulu to address the point raised by @Mad Dog.

As to why this doesn't meet the threshold for blocking a horizontal merger: Hollywood studio film-making is an extremely unconcentrated and highly competitive market. There's over 700 movies that get theater releases and around 100 of those are wide releases by the major studios.

Disney releases 10 wide release movies a year while Fox releases 17-20 wide release movies a year and another 10 limited releases.

At most Disney would be getting 30% of the "wide release" market while leaving another 4-5 competitors that still release 70 other movies to wide releases (Universal, Warner, Sony, Paramount, Lionsgate).

As far as box office goes, Disney would be getting somewhere around 35-40% of the total box office, but that's still in a competitive market in terms of 5 other studios aggregating another 40-45% and another dozen or so taking most of the remainder.

That's the problem here, that there's so many other competitors still surviving. Disney would be the strongest studio in terms of production by far, but in the overall market, there's still a lot of other producers.

AT&T-T Mobile merger was halted because it would have reduced the overall market to only 2 other mobile competitors (Verizon and Sprint) while giving AT&T roughly 50% of the overall market.

Comcast-Time Warner Cable was halted because it would have given Comcast roughly 75% of the overall high speed internet market and left it with only 2 major competitors in the overall broadband market: Comcast would have had 35 million subscribers, AT&T around 15 million, and Charter 9 million.

The problem is there's lots more competitors in the film production market and Disney can also argue for an expanded market definition to include a company like Netflix that has 0 theater releases but produces 100 films a year of which around 3-4 cost $40-100 million which would arguably get a wide release with any other studio...

Well thats also because two NBC/Universal Execs are in charge of Netflix. That's why a lot of the films on Netflix were originally Universal films they passed on the costs and ownership too and a lot of UCP shows were picked up internationally due to Bela Balajaria who was head of Universal Television before moving to Netflix.

Also Netflix pays a lot of money for global streaming rights for shows like they overpay which covers the full production costs in addition to a very nice revenue.

One last point Comcast joining the bidding would've increased the price right. So by doing so, maybe Comcast knows something else is about to be up for grabs and with Disney spending 60 billion for Fox may help them not obtain it from Comcast.

 

[AlexanderMBush]

Disney, Fox Deal Expected for Thursday – Variety

 

[zg44]

Well thats also because two NBC/Universal Execs are in charge of Netflix. That's why a lot of the films on Netflix were originally Universal films they passed on the costs and ownership too and a lot of UCP shows were picked up internationally due to Bela Balajaria who was head of Universal Television before moving to Netflix.

Also Netflix pays a lot of money for global streaming rights for shows like they overpay which covers the full production costs in addition to a very nice revenue.

One last point Comcast joining the bidding would've increased the price right. So by doing so, maybe Comcast knows something else is about to be up for grabs and with Disney spending 60 billion for Fox may help them not obtain it from Comcast.

Yeah, I think it makes sense generally if Comcast doesn't want to take a risk with trying to run its own global service.

It'd be interesting to see what Comcast's answer to this is, if any. DreamWorks was a sensible acquisition to expand animated film production up to 4 a year as well as add animated tv production, but we'll see if they feel the need to make any more acquisitions for content or production in the next couple of years.

 

[Nick]

Yeah, I think it makes sense generally if Comcast doesn't want to take a risk with trying to run its own global service.

It'd be interesting to see what Comcast's answer to this is, if any. DreamWorks was a sensible acquisition to expand animated film production up to 4 a year as well as add animated tv production, but we'll see if they feel the need to make any more acquisitions for content or production in the next couple of years.

Paramount/Parts of viacom would be ideal for Comcast.

Not that Paramount has a particularly great vault, but with Viacom, they could own Nickelodeon, which has always sort of had a connection to Universal and it would finally give Comcast a competitor to Disney in the children/pre-teen market. Paramount was also a former distributor of DreamWorks movies, so I assume that they will still make money on Blu-Ray sales and things of that nature for some of those movies.

Paramount also made the Transformers, Star Trek and Mission: Impossible films. Also a nice back catalog of Titanic, Forrest Gump, etc. Would be a good pick up, imo.

 

[quinnmac000]

There is one other set of IPs that none of us thought about, toys. Comcast buying Mattel or Hasbro could give them quite a few IPs as well.

Time Warner has to divest assets so there is a chance they may shed Cartoon Network and their other kid divisions which Comcast should quickly snatch up (Rick and Morty going under Universal would be fantastic) as well as buying their foreign production/distribution.

As for Paramount/Viacom, film wise there is a losing value. CBS owns the rights to Star Trek not Paramount so even if they buy Paramount they still need to deal with CBS for park usage. Also with JJ Abrams leaving his exclusive deal, Tom Cruise not being a box office draw, the only assets of worth under Paramount would be their television (13 Reasons Why, Cary Fukanga Deal, etc) the back catalog of film, and potentially Nickelodeon.

 

[zg44]

Yeah, Viacom is complicated to say the least. Given that it has somewhere around 20-25 cable networks (with around 6-7 of them being major cable networks in terms of ratings), that'd be a lot to take over, since a lot of those cable networks will probably close over the next 10-15 years (the low rated ones). Comcast would need some kind of major streaming solution if it was going to take over a lot of those.

And yeah, it's a negative that CBS owns the rights to the original Star Trek characters and all merchandising, so they'd have to be a part of any theme park rights arrangement.

Mattel is interesting, but most people still expect some kind of Hasbro-Mattel merger to be the endgame for those two companies (as people have been expecting for 2 decades or so).

Beyond those, Comcast would probably look at the following:
1) ITV (if it wants to go overseas and buy a large British tv production firm) - there have been rumors about this for years
2) Sony (for a combined tv/movie production firm with some nice overseas networks)
3) MGM (for Bond film rights as well as a small tv production firm and some film rights)

Those 3 would probably get through any anti-trust review easily since none of them control significant US cable networks or US-based OTT offerings.

 

[Paulio]

Time Warner isn't interested in selling off their assets to anyone since they're about to be merged with AT&T. Viacom's assets are nothing compared to Fox's properties (The Simpsons, Speed, Family Guy, Predator, Die Hard, X-Men, Bob's Burger, etc). No way in hell Comcast would be interested in just a few of these when Paramount is making a bunch of mediocre movies lately outside of the Mission: Impossible series and Paramount's only saving grave for TV shows is Star Trek. Star Trek is still overshadowed by Star Wars and many people are interested in the latter than the former. Nickelodeon is already the thing of the past and is not popular as it used to be. All in all, Viacom doesn't have as many assets to be valued from and Viacom isn't interested in selling Paramount to anyone. The only valuable thing Comcast could get is from Sony since it has the Spider-Man rights with nice international networks, but that's about it since Sony is just a struggling and doesn't offer anything valuable. MGM isn't that attractive either.

On the unrelated note, the Fantastic Four deal would fully revert back to Constantin Film once the Disney/Fox deal goes through since Fox doesn't own permanent distribution rights to it, but rather exclusive distribution rights for the time being. The F4 deal was only between Fox as a major studio and the German production company Constantin Film. Once the Disney/Fox deal goes through, Fox would no longer be a major film studio, but rather a production label for TWDC, and all F4 rights would fully revert back to Constantin Film which has to look for a new distributor or can stick with Disney. Maybe Comcast has a chance to pick the F4 rights as soon Constantin Film start offering something good on the table. Comcast hasn't been on the comic-book superhero trend since 2008's The Incredible Hulk, unlike WB, Sony, and Disney, and maybe they will abandon the mess of the Dark Universe (since it tries to emulate like an action-packed MCU).

 

[Nick]

Time Warner isn't interested in selling off their assets to anyone since they're about to be merged with AT&T. Viacom's assets are nothing compared to Fox's properties (The Simpsons, Speed, Family Guy, Predator, Die Hard, X-Men, Bob's Burger, etc). No way in hell Comcast would be interested in just a few of these when Paramount is making a bunch of mediocre movies lately outside of the Mission: Impossible series and Paramount's only saving grave for TV shows is Star Trek. Star Trek is still overshadowed by Star Wars and many people are interested in the latter than the former. Nickelodeon is already the thing of the past and is not popular as it used to be. All in all, Viacom doesn't have as many assets to be valued from and Viacom isn't interested in selling Paramount to anyone. The only valuable thing Comcast could get is from Sony since it has the Spider-Man rights with nice international networks, but that's about it since Sony is just a struggling and doesn't offer anything valuable. MGM isn't that attractive either.

On the unrelated note, the Fantastic Four deal would fully revert back to Constantin Film once the Disney/Fox deal goes through since Fox doesn't own permanent distribution rights to it, but rather exclusive distribution rights for the time being. The F4 deal was only between Fox as a major studio and the German production company Constantin Film. Once the Disney/Fox deal goes through, Fox would no longer be a major film studio, but rather a production label for TWDC, and all F4 rights would fully revert back to Constantin Film which has to look for a new distributor or can stick with Disney. Maybe Comcast has a chance to pick the F4 rights as soon Constantin Film start offering something good on the table. Comcast hasn't been on the comic-book superhero trend since 2008's The Incredible Hulk, unlike WB, Sony, and Disney, and maybe they will abandon the mess of the Dark Universe (since it tries to emulate like an action-packed MCU).

I'll just cut straight to my point: It's better for the brand that Universal stay out of the superhero game... People would just be annoyed that F4 weren't a part of the MCU and that some pointless stand-alone was being made.

 

[zg44]

Fantastic Four earned $330m, $290m, and $170m in its three outings worldwide over the past 12 years. There's no evidence that it can stand alone outside of the MCU at this point.

 

[Milla4Prez66]

Fantastic Four earned $330m, $290m, and $170m in its three outings worldwide over the past 12 years. There's no evidence that it can stand alone outside of the MCU at this point.

You're right, the F4 needs the MCU at this point. The MCU doesn't necessarily need the F4, but it could really use some of the characters that go with those rights like Galactus, Silver Surfer, Dr. Doom, etc.

 

[Paulio]

I'll just cut straight to my point: It's better for the brand that Universal stay out of the superhero game... People would just be annoyed that F4 weren't a part of the MCU and that some pointless stand-alone was being made.

That's not a valid concern just because some fans complain, no more different than the current complaints against the Disney/Fox deal. I know some people want F4 into the MCU, but Constantin can choose whatever studio it wishes and whatever happens, it's their decision. And yeah, having Universal not have any Superhero film is the result they are forced to start the Dark Universe in order to emulate the success of MCU. I don't think the Universal handling of a superhero movie can be any worse than Fox and Sony's superhero movies, as long they don't screw up.

Fantastic Four earned $330m, $290m, and $170m in its three outings worldwide over the past 12 years. There's no evidence that it can stand alone outside of the MCU at this point.

The first film and the second film were made by a bunch of people who hate the characters and don't put as much heart into it, and the third film is made simply because Constantin doesn't want to lose the rights to the F4. However, Noah Hawley, the guy who makes the Legion TV series, did say he wanted to make a Dr. Doom movie so it's not out of the possibility that kind of F4 movie wouldn't be that bad. Anything good that's possible.

 

[rioriz]

You're right, the F4 needs the MCU at this point. The MCU doesn't necessarily need the F4, but it could really use some of the characters that go with those rights like Galactus, Silver Surfer, Dr. Doom, etc.

I love F4 and agree that they could really thrive from being immersed in the MCU

 

[Nick]

That's not a valid concern just because some fans complain, no more different than the current complaints against the Disney/Fox deal. I know some people want F4 into the MCU, but Constantin can choose whatever studio it wishes and whatever happens, it's their decision. And yeah, having Universal not have any Superhero film is the result they are forced to start the Dark Universe in order to emulate the success of MCU. I don't think the Universal handling of a superhero movie can be any worse than Fox and Sony's superhero movies, as long they don't screw up.

It's not the quality of the film we're talking about here. The Worldwide box office has gone down considerably with every movie with the most recent F4 pulling in less than $170M WORLDWIDE. There's no reason to believe that just because Universal does a F4 film it would make money.

 

[zg44]

Time Warner isn't interested in selling off their assets to anyone since they're about to be merged with AT&T. Viacom's assets are nothing compared to Fox's properties (The Simpsons, Speed, Family Guy, Predator, Die Hard, X-Men, Bob's Burger, etc). No way in hell Comcast would be interested in just a few of these when Paramount is making a bunch of mediocre movies lately outside of the Mission: Impossible series and Paramount's only saving grave for TV shows is Star Trek. Star Trek is still overshadowed by Star Wars and many people are interested in the latter than the former. Nickelodeon is already the thing of the past and is not popular as it used to be. All in all, Viacom doesn't have as many assets to be valued from and Viacom isn't interested in selling Paramount to anyone. The only valuable thing Comcast could get is from Sony since it has the Spider-Man rights with nice international networks, but that's about it since Sony is just a struggling and doesn't offer anything valuable. MGM isn't that attractive either.

I mean if it comes down to franchises, the reality is that most franchises are tired or played out..., what will happen to Star Wars in 10 years? What will happen to Marvel post-Infinity Wars when RDJ walks away?

Of course, those franchises won't die, but there will be serious fatigue, just as there is in Disney's own Pirates of the Caribbean. Harry Potter's Fantastic Beasts movies aren't quite as strong as the main series.

Disney itself isn't immune to franchise fatigue, it's just that they were smart to realize that Marvel and Lucasfilm had 2 major franchises/universes that hadn't been exploited in a significant fashion yet. The MCU works because it's a clean/fresh script that could be filled by RDJ and the rest. That won't be the case for the post-Thanos phases which will operate in a world where it's "already been done" and they're trying to carry a weighty franchise forward. A lot of the reason why things like GotG or Doctor Strange work is that they feel fresh compared to previous superhero movies.

That's one of the main reasons why the DCEU has largely failed... because Superman and Batman in particular have already received a large number of live action films and coming off of the Nolan trilogy, it was going to be hard to have that same impact with a new batman. They could only sell the "ensemble" idea one time before Justice League came and flopped. Sure they should have done a much better job of building up the universe with more introductory movies for Flash and Aquaman even before Batman vs Superman, but we'll have to see how well superhero movies hold up in the longer run once the first set of Avengers retires.

Rebooting X-Men isn't guaranteed to be successful either; I think it will work at some level to plug the hole of heroes leaving, but Fox has exploited that series pretty heavily the past 20 years and will go out with a last hurrah of a bunch of movies this upcoming year. Disney will have to be careful to weave it in in an interesting way similar to Spiderman Homecoming.

All of that said, franchises still have long-term value like Spiderman or James Bond or others. They can still be carried forward, but there's never a guarantee, that's a part of the reason why Fox is getting out of the business.

Universal's best shot at a major new franchise in the mid/longer run is these Nintendo rights if they can make that animated movie a big hit.

 

[quinnmac000]

Universal's best shot at a major new franchise in the mid/longer run is these Nintendo rights if they can make that animated movie a big hit.

Universal already has other franchises lined up...some based on original ideas and others based on novels: Mortal Engines (Novel), School of Good and Evil (Fantasy Comedy book series), Space Race (Original Concept), Johnny Express (Based off animated Short), Doctor Doolittle based on the old version, Spirit Animals (Novel), Voltron (their now owned tv show)....and then add their over 300 Japanese IPs they haven't exploited.

Nintendo helps but Universals biggest strength when it comes to these franchises is they aren't doing YA novels, they aren't doing Superhero films, they aren't doing horror franchises, they are focusing on concepts and ideas that aren't currently represented in the theatre such as fantasy, adventure, and pure Sci-fi.

 

[AlexanderMBush]

Universal already has other franchises lined up...some based on original ideas and others based on novels: Mortal Engines (Novel), School of Good and Evil (Fantasy Comedy book series), Space Race (Original Concept), Johnny Express (Based off animated Short), Doctor Doolittle based on the old version, Spirit Animals (Novel), Voltron (their now owned tv show)....and then add their over 300 Japanese IPs they haven't exploited.

You are assuming that all of them will be hits, but the thing that should be thought of when you consider that, is on if they could be hits.

There is no guarantee that they will all make big, or even anything at all; and that there is a high probability with most of those that you mentioned that would possibly falter. And even then, not everything from Japan can be easily translated, or that Hollywood is trying to translate in ways becoming more and more problematic with the society that is continuing to change frequently.

I would slow those breaks, and look more to the immediate; mainly to Legendary, Illumination, Blumhouse, and DreamWorks.

To get back into topic on Disney/Fox, I wonder if they'll do the announcement similar to when Lucasfilm was accquired, when they had Iger; Lucas; and Kennedy on-hand in a video, but in this case; being Iger and the Muellers.

And to add, I would assume that when announced, they may have an article on Marvel saying that Marvel Studios has now the rights to Fox's X-Men characters, but will address that Dark Phoenix, Deadpool 2, and The New Mutants will not be affected.

 

[quinnmac000]

You are assuming that all of them will be hits, but the thing that should be thought of when you consider that, is on if they could be hits.

There is no guarantee that they will all make big, or even anything at all; and that there is a high probability with most of those that you mentioned that would possibly falter. And even then, not everything from Japan can be easily translated, or that Hollywood is trying to translate in ways becoming more and more problematic with the society that is continuing to change frequently.

I would slow those breaks, and look more to the immediate; mainly to Legendary, Illumination, Blumhouse, and DreamWorks.

You do know those listed projects are all immediate as in currently in production with hopes to be released by 2020 right?

Even if they aren't all a "hit," the main thing is rather than doubling down on creating franchises based off super hero and already established franchises, they are focusing on rather obscure and genres currently not represented in theatres. When was the last true adventure movie in cinema, fantasy-based film, etc. Its kinda why movies like The Purge, Pitch Perfect, and etc did extremely well. Because in a sea of super hero remakes, they are providing something different.

And also how are we defining hit. Last time i checked "hits" are defined by budget and how much they made back. The Mummy if it didn't cost over 100 Million to make would have been classified as a hit because it would've made money. Hints why Split which only costed ~10 million and made less world wide is a hit rather than a flop. Heck Happy Death Day is classified a hit despite only making ~100 million worldwide.

 

[zg44]

Universal already has other franchises lined up...some based on original ideas and others based on novels: Mortal Engines (Novel), School of Good and Evil (Fantasy Comedy book series), Space Race (Original Concept), Johnny Express (Based off animated Short), Doctor Doolittle based on the old version, Spirit Animals (Novel), Voltron (their now owned tv show)....and then add their over 300 Japanese IPs they haven't exploited.

Nintendo helps but Universals biggest strength when it comes to these franchises is they aren't doing YA novels, they aren't doing Superhero films, they aren't doing horror franchises, they are focusing on concepts and ideas that aren't currently represented in the theatre such as fantasy, adventure, and pure Sci-fi.

Sure, I just think that the Nintendo "Mario Universe" and possible spinoffs or a Zelda movie (keep an eye on BotW, it may become the highest selling Zelda game ever) have the highest chance of success.

i.e. It's very easy for me to imagine the first Mario movie hitting $600-800 million in global box office and launching sequels/spinoffs and a Zelda movie that hits $400+ million in box office over a 10 year time frame.

As for possible live action Universal franchise launches, I think the 2 strongest upcoming movies are the Voyage of Doctor Dolittle with RDJ and Detective Pikachu (Legendary releasing with Universal) with Ryan Reynolds. I can see both of those being profitable and getting sequels. The rest may be more hit or miss depending on what resonates with the public.

It's impossible to guess whether a title like Mortal Engines will do well for example. A lot of people know of it, but does that mean people will show up for it? We just have to wait and see. The above titles (Mario movie, Dolittle, Detective Pikachu) seem like the most "guaranteed" to be successful launches.

To get back into topic on Disney/Fox, I wonder if they'll do the announcement similar to when Lucasfilm was accquired, when they had Iger; Lucas; and Kennedy on-hand in a video, but in this case; being Iger and the Muellers.

And to add, I would assume that when announced, they may have an article on Marvel saying that Marvel Studios has now the rights to Fox's X-Men characters, but will address that Dark Phoenix, Deadpool 2, and The New Mutants will not be affected.

I believe that 4 X-Men movies (New Mutants, Deadpool 2, X-Men: Dark Phoenix, and Gambit) will go forwards but the following untitled 5 will be halted in pre-production.

As for transfer of rights, I don't think that really needs to happen per se, Feige can't do anything with X-Men until the next phase of MCU which isn't until after Avengers 4. Most likely the Marvel guys are already working on moving things around in the next phases in anticipation of X-Men/FF coming on board.

 

[quinnmac000]

Sure, I just think that the Nintendo "Mario Universe" and possible spinoffs or a Zelda movie (keep an eye on BotW, it may become the highest selling Zelda game ever) have the highest chance of success.

i.e. It's very easy for me to imagine the first Mario movie hitting $600-800 million in global box office and launching sequels/spinoffs and a Zelda movie that hits $400+ million in box office over a 10 year time frame.

As for possible live action Universal franchise launches, I think the 2 strongest upcoming movies are the Voyage of Doctor Dolittle with RDJ and Detective Pikachu (Legendary releasing with Universal) with Ryan Reynolds. I can see both of those being profitable and getting sequels. The rest may be more hit or miss depending on what resonates with the public.

It's impossible to guess whether a title like Mortal Engines will do well for example. A lot of people know of it, but does that mean people will show up for it? We just have to wait and see. The above titles (Mario movie, Dolittle, Detective Pikachu) seem like the most "guaranteed" to be successful launches.

Don't get me wrong I'm strongly believe that Mario and other Nintendo properties would be extremely successful. That is undeniable. At the same time though, Universal shouldn't rely as that as the upcoming bread and butter. Properties with the most name recognition are the easiest to disappoint. Yea the film may make a lot of money (Superman VS Batman, Suicide Squad, Justice League) but it also tarnishes the reputation of the series down the line. You don't keep throwing money at something that isn't working and hopes it later catches on without totally revamping what you are doing.

Did anyone at Universal expect Fast and Furious to be where it is at now? Probably not. Did anyone expect Despicable Me to be as successful as it was after a string of not great results for Illumination? Nope they didn't but look at where it is now. Universal is weird as things planned for success and marketed as the next great thing tend to not do well (Mummy, American Made, Atomic Blonde, Warcraft, etc) and things just done, with people being skeptical in how good it will be, tend to do extremely well (Sing, Trolls, Boss Baby, Split, etc). While it may be a huge coincidence this is how it tends to happen for Universal, it gives me much more hope for the lesser known and probably less marketed franchises they are currently working on to be successful over the massively hyped ones.

 

[zg44]

Don't get me wrong I'm strongly believe that Mario and other Nintendo properties would be extremely successful. That is undeniable. At the same time though, Universal shouldn't rely as that as the upcoming bread and butter. Properties with the most name recognition are the easiest to disappoint. Yea the film may make a lot of money (Superman VS Batman, Suicide Squad, Justice League) but it also tarnishes the reputation of the series down the line. You don't keep throwing money at something that isn't working and hopes it later catches on without totally revamping what you are doing.

Did anyone at Universal expect Fast and Furious to be where it is at now? Probably not. Did anyone expect Despicable Me to be as successful as it was after a string of not great results for Illumination? Nope they didn't but look at where it is now. Universal is weird as things planned for success and marketed as the next great thing tend to not do well (Mummy, American Made, Atomic Blonde, Warcraft, etc) and things just done, with people being skeptical in how good it will be, tend to do extremely well (Sing, Trolls, Boss Baby, Split, etc). While it may be a huge coincidence this is how it tends to happen for Universal, it gives me much more hope for the lesser known and probably less marketed franchises they are currently working on to be successful over the massively hyped ones.

Sure, I think F&F is the best example of how an organic franchise can start out of nowhere and that throwing a lot of things at the wall and seeing what sticks is the best approach for developing future franchises.

As much as most movie fans have focused on Disney and its ability to purchase IPs and build them out to unmatched success, Universal has managed to go from a distant also ran pre-2005 to having a strong stable of franchises and the ability to launch them. If you had to list which studios have improved their output the most in terms of wide releases, Universal would be a close second to Disney since 2005. Warner has mostly just stayed stable since it had lots of big franchises already (i.e. LOTR, the various Batman/Superman iterations), while the other 3 studios have struggled a bit more (especially Paramount and Sony).

Also, the reality is just that franchises will all tire; people got tired of Westerns, and people will also get tired of superhero movies at some point. That doesn't mean they'll go away, but it's probably for the best for there to be a reduction in superhero output as a result of Marvel re-acquiring X-Men/FF.

Universal is in a good spot given that it has 2 strong animation houses, but it needs to find successors to F&F and Jurassic among live action franchises. Of course, that's harder done than said, but they have as good a shot as anyone at it given that they're at least committed to experimenting.