Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Disney Makes Deal for 21st Century Fox, Reshaping Entertainment Landscape (nytimes.com)

Posted by msmash on from the big-bucks dept.

Disney is going all in for its upcoming fight with Netflix and other streaming giants. The Walt Disney Company said Thursday that it had reached a deal to buy most of the assets of 21st Century Fox, the conglomerate controlled by Rupert Murdoch, in an all-stock transaction valued at roughly $52.4 billion. From a report: To complete the integration, a legacy-defining task, Robert A. Iger, Disney's chief executive, agreed to renew his contract for a fourth time, delaying retirement from July 2019 to the end of 2021. While the merger still requires approval by antitrust regulators -- and the Justice Department recently moved to block a big media company from becoming even bigger -- the once unthinkable acquisition promises to reshape Hollywood and Silicon Valley. It is the biggest counterattack from a traditional media company against the tech giants that have aggressively moved into the entertainment business. Disney now has enough muscle to become a true competitor to Netflix, Apple, Amazon, Google and Facebook in the fast-growing realm of online video. Alternative source: Variety.

171 comments

  1. Time to watch this Lessig talk again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3O1MC1AqvM

  2. Does that include by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Does that include the fake news business? Micky mouse meets a gay liberal muslim conspiracy to give everyone affordable healthcare!

    1. Re:Does that include by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope, the Fake News is part of the Russian division. This is just Murdoch getting rid of all the unprofitable baggage that forces him to hang out in Hollywood where some of the Homosexual Cooties rub off on him if he doesn't wear his Astronaut suit.

    2. Re:Does that include by Mashiki · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Ask the washington post, cnn, nbc, or abc news. They've done a bang-up job over the last few years of making fake news all on their own. You might even remember what started it in the current era, it was Dan Rather's "fake but accurate" which offered no proof at all.

      But if you want a real conspiracy? Ask yourself why the transmovement is pushing their stuff on pre-teens, and believe that a 3yr old boy or girl "really knows they're a girl or boy." And pushing puberty blockers before they're even old enough to legally engage in sex. Think back if you can, to when you were that young and all the stupid garbage you believed. I can remember wanting to be a train. And you can bet your and my ass, that if your parents were fawning after the transmovement you'd do what they were saying just to make them happy. Why? Because your brain isn't developed enough to understand.

      FYI if you want affordable healthcare, you need it to be at the state level. Not the federal level, even at that I hope you're going to enjoy shortages and healthcare rationing. Whether it's in Canada, Sweden, France or the UK, we all have rationed healthcare even if it's free. Oh, and I still have medical insurance here in Canada because that "free healthcare" doesn't cover everything. And if you want to see wait times, you can look here. I hope you don't mind waiting 30-50 days for cancer treatment to start, or 150 days for bypass surgery or 11 months to get into a pain management clinic.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    3. Re:Does that include by jellomizer · · Score: 0, Troll

      There is some real differences. If false information gets put out from these sources, which will tend to happen due to the financial pressure to be first to push out the news, they will retract the information publicly, and if it was fake then the journalist behind it, (many who were considered big names) can get fired.

      If you check Fox News website legal link, and compared to the other sites legal link. They are an "Entertainment Company" Not a news organization. They use this to push false and misleading information, or whatever they think they can get away with.

      Having watched Fox News I found for the most part the information isn't fake, however it is bias in its tone. "Liberals Protest Miss Universe Pageant" vs. "group name Protest Miss Universe Pageant". Because they want to keep the tone that people with left leaning tendencies are all grouped together in one group, when compared with all of them together you find a crazy set of people with hypercritical views. While people (and this can be said about right leaning individuals as well) are more complicated and often more sane then what the predominate party line has stated. A Gun carrying pro-lifer who attends church every Sunday, can still be left leaning, because they may feel strongly about many of the other issue, they may want stronger government over site in businesses, against the death penalty (As part of their pro-life stance), insurances that citizens are treated fairly across genders and races.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    4. Re:Does that include by Mashiki · · Score: 2, Informative

      There is some real differences. If false information gets put out from these sources, which will tend to happen due to the financial pressure to be first to push out the news, they will retract the information publicly, and if it was fake then the journalist behind it, (many who were considered big names) can get fired.

      You mean like the what was it? 10+ hours of the media fawning all over the wikileaks email with a date of the 4th(leaked), when the actual date was the 14th? Remember how wapo didn't retract the power grid hacking stuff for several days until after people pointed out the problems? It's not really any different then fox, if you've watched it as you say then you already know that they do broadcast retractions when they get things wrong too.

      If you check Fox News website legal link, and compared to the other sites legal link. They are an "Entertainment Company" Not a news organization. They use this to push false and misleading information, or whatever they think they can get away with.

      You mean this section?

      FOX News Channel (FNC) is a 24-hour all-encompassing news service dedicated to delivering breaking news as well as political and business news. The number one network in cable, FNC has been the most-watched television news channel for 15 years and according to a Suffolk University/USA Today poll, is the most-trusted television news source in the country. Owned by 21st Century Fox, FNC is available in 90 million homes and dominates the cable news landscape, routinely notching the top ten programs in the genre.

      Doesn't say entertainment company, it states that it is a news organization, and they bill themselves as a news company. The main parent(21st century) is "entertainment company" however. Which is the only section where I see "entertainment company" listed.

      There's also nothing wrong with the bias either, that's one of the reasons it has the rating it does. It's actually open with that bias, it's not trying to hide it like say WAPO or CBS does.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    5. Re:Does that include by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Ask the washington post, cnn, nbc, or abc news. They've done a bang-up job over the last few years of making fake news all on their own. You might even remember what started it in the current era, it was Dan Rather's "fake but accurate" which offered no proof at all.

      Uh no, actually, the current era began with an incident on Dateline. Of course, the fact is, those tanks did result in lots of settled lawsuits so you can be sure it wasn't entirely manufactured.

      Then again, concurrent with Dan Rather, we have....real fraud that got hundreds of thousands killed, and you'll never ever bring that up.

      But if you want a real conspiracy? Ask yourself why the transmovement is pushing their stuff on pre-teens, and believe that a 3yr old boy or girl "really knows they're a girl or boy." And pushing puberty blockers before they're even old enough to legally engage in sex. Think back if you can, to when you were that young and all the stupid garbage you believed. I can remember wanting to be a train. And you can bet your and my ass, that if your parents were fawning after the transmovement you'd do what they were saying just to make them happy. Why? Because your brain isn't developed enough to understand.

      Man, that is a crazy conspiracy Mashiki, and you don't even have a reason to blame the reverse vampires.

      Meanwhile, actual reality escapes you.

      You know, you wouldn't sound so crazy if you didn't make up such hysterical bullshit, but stuck to facts. Actual provable events.

      Not your foaming at the mouth hyperbole.

      FYI if you want affordable healthcare, you need it to be at the state level. Not the federal level, even at that I hope you're going to enjoy shortages and healthcare rationing.

      Nope, I'm a citizen of the United States, and you may not understand this, but I want healthcare EVERYWHERE in my country, and more to the point, there are some practical considerations that necessitate my ability to cross state lines to get healthcare, as the boundaries of states were not set according to population or economics. A fatal flaw, but what can we do?

      Whether it's in Canada, Sweden, France or the UK, we all have rationed healthcare even if it's free.

      Everybody everywhere has rationed healthcare. That's because health care resources are not infinite or unlimited.

      Letting you buy some healthcare at my expense because you have more money is not a gain.

      Oh, and I still have medical insurance here in Canada because that "free healthcare" doesn't cover everything.

      That's a choice. Not a necessary element. If you don't like it, write your Prime Minister.

      And if you want to see wait times, you can look here. I hope you don't mind waiting 30-50 days for cancer treatment to start, or 150 days for bypass surgery or 11 months to get into a pain management clinic.

      And what happe

    6. Re:Does that include by slshdtisctrldbysjws · · Score: 1

      The fact that an idiotic troll like this is modded up proves Slashdot is dead

      --
      My karma was manually wiped by site staff https://slashdot.org/~slshdtisctrldbysjws 18 mod up, 10 mod down = bad karma
    7. Re:Does that include by Mashiki · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Uh no, actually, the current era began with an incident on

      Well I didn't really want to go that far back, but if we really want to we can start with 60 minutes back in the 1970's. I'm sure you already know that one.

      Man, that is a crazy conspiracy Mashiki, and you don't even have a reason to blame the... You know, you wouldn't sound so crazy if you didn't make up such hysterical bullshit, but stuck to facts. Actual provable events.

      Not your foaming at the mouth hyperbole.

      Guess that's why some schools in the UK have seen a 2800% increase in kids suddenly claiming to be trans right? Not been paying attention at all? I guess not.

      Nope, I'm a citizen of the United States, and you may not understand this, but I want healthcare EVERYWHERE in my country, and more to the point, there are some practical considerations that necessitate my ability to cross state lines to get healthcare, as the boundaries of states were not set according to population or economics

      How do you think it works in Canada? You know the single payer system that the left loves in droves? Each province is responsible for the level of healthcare. The federal government has no input. The fact that you want some bureaucrat in Washington to decide if Atlanta gets a new hospital is sure telling.

      Everybody everywhere has rationed healthcare. That's because health care resources are not infinite or unlimited.

      Except the part where healthcare is rationed because the government is unwilling to pay for it right?

      That's a choice. Not a necessary element. If you don't like it, write your Prime Minister.

      Again showing your ignorance. The PM has nothing to do with the state of healthcare in Canada, The premiers of each province do. On top of that, it is a necessary element otherwise you'd be as broke as someone in the US if you're a person who requires medications or specialized care. Why don't you go take a look at the green shield website and get an idea of how much you're gonna pay out, because many things aren't covered.

      And what happens in the United States?

      What's the difference between Canada and the US again? Right. You can't pay for your own healthcare in Canada at all, everyone get's in line and you just might die from waiting. Where as if you have money in most cases you can get that care.

      Oh well, it's ok, I still remember you lying about

      Can't figure out how that's related, but I've got a very good idea who you are now. I'll remind you, that it was the NDP that shut down the coal power plants and drove the price of electricity through the roof as well. And also required the utilities to build more transmission towers to cover cities that were suddenly off the grid. There's no lie in that.

      I do like how you're so scared to stick your name behind what you're saying though. Such convincing truths after all.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    8. Re:Does that include by stonecypher · · Score: 1

      Ask the washington post, cnn, nbc, or abc news. They've done a bang-up job over the last few years of making fake news all on their own.

      I can't help but think the internet will improve dramatically as soon as there's a downside to being wrong in public again

      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
    9. Re:Does that include by lexman098 · · Score: 1

      What's the difference between Canada and the US again? Right. You can't pay for your own healthcare in Canada at all, everyone get's in line and you just might die from waiting. Where as if you have money in most cases you can get that care.

      Why should those with money go to the front of the line?

    10. Re:Does that include by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh no, actually, the current era began with an incident on

      Well I didn't really want to go that far back, but if we really want to we can start with 60 minutes back in the 1970's. I'm sure you already know that one.

      Oh, if you want to go there, then let's go back to your old friend in the Publishing business. Or even....a made up incident!

      But hey, at least you aren't going to war because of jealousy.

      Meanwhile, oops... you believed another hoax!

      Man, that is a crazy conspiracy Mashiki, and you don't even have a reason to blame the... You know, you wouldn't sound so crazy if you didn't make up such hysterical bullshit, but stuck to facts. Actual provable events.

      Not your foaming at the mouth hyperbole.

      Guess that's why some schools in the UK have seen a 2800% increase in kids suddenly claiming to be trans right?

      Oh no! BIG HUGE PERCENTAGES! C'mon, you lying bullshitter, you know when you make blind claims of 2800% you'd just making yourself an obvious joke. You might as well complain that Hogwarts has had an outbreak of Goblin Flu for all the legitimacy that your complaints have.

      Not been paying attention at all? I guess not.

      Oh, is this like the time you wanted me to believe Satanic Worship was going on? Spare me your hysteria! You know what your moral panic doesn't mention? That the parents mentioned NOTHING other than a name change, a longer hair-style and different clothes. THE HORRORS!

      Here's a real problem. Or this one. Or this!

      Nope, I'm a citizen of the United States, and you may not understand this, but I want healthcare EVERYWHERE in my country, and more to the point, there are some practical considerations that necessitate my ability to cross state lines to get healthcare, as the boundaries of states were not set according to population or economics

      How do you think it works in Canada?

      According to you, it's apparently a death trap.

      You know the single payer system that the left loves in droves? Each province is responsible for the level of healthcare. The federal government has no input. The fact that you want some bureaucrat in Washington to decide if Atlanta gets a new hospital is sure telling.

      I sure don't want the idiots in Georgia deciding I get access to a hospital or not. And to be honest, they're not so good at paving their own roads. Or managing their own elections. Or staying away from other people's water. They need adult supervision. Sorry, but it's true.

      Everybody everywhere has rationed healthcare. That's because health care resources are not infinite or unlimited.

      Except the part where healthcare is rationed because the government is unwilling to pay for it right?

      Nope, not when it's the insur

    11. Re:Does that include by Megol · · Score: 1

      You don't think the increased acceptance of homosexuals and intersex people have something to do with your increase? That the Internet allows people to learn that one actually can live as one feels like? That one doesn't need to hide anything and still have a worthy life?

      Nah. False news and SJW propaganda forcing people to do things against their will is of course the sole reason.

      What's _your_ name BTW?

    12. Re:Does that include by Megol · · Score: 1

      They still can at least in Canada, the poster you quoted is wrong. But then he tends to be...

    13. Re:Does that include by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      No wonder you're unable to admit it though, you're committed to the lie. Ferociously so. It's like your inability to admit that the Iraq War was started by Bush the First, who wanted a reason to make the Middle Eastern Oil States beg for American help.

      Says the person who can't even read? Sure glad you can't read at all. Much like the rest of your post, which can't be coherent let alone respond in context.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    14. Re:Does that include by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      You don't think the increased acceptance of homosexuals and intersex people have something to do with your increase? That the Internet allows people to learn that one actually can live as one feels like? That one doesn't need to hide anything and still have a worthy life?

      You mean the part where people are applying this to kids who have trouble tying their shoes? But absolutely know that they're *insert gender* because reasons. Sure. Do you or don't you remember the "autism" garbage a few years ago? I'm guessing not, otherwise you'd be seeing the same push in turns of trendiness.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    15. Re:Does that include by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Why should those with money go to the front of the line?

      You misunderstand. I'd be happier if I had the option of being able to pay a private hospital for care if I had the money. I don't have that choice, everyone gets the same level of shit care unless you goto another country.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    16. Re:Does that include by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      They still can at least in Canada, the poster you quoted is wrong. But then he tends to be...

      Only if you go to the US, or another country that allows you to. There's one system of healthcare in Canada, just one. You're not going to be paying money out of pocket for healthcare to "jump the queue." There are no private hospital care options in Canada. I guess that's wrong though, gee or something.

      Sometimes, sometimes if you're lucky a province may have private hospice care where patients can pay 50% of "day-in" surgery, Ontario had that for hernia care. It doesn't anymore, it was ruled in violation of the healthcare act. That hospice had been operating since 1883 and was shut down almost 12 years ago. Your ignorance is astounding though.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    17. Re:Does that include by lexman098 · · Score: 1

      I'd be happier if I had the option of being able to pay a private hospital for care if I had the money.

      If there's a private hospital it sucks resources from the public ones. The better doctors want to work there. Patients who pay for care at that hospital are now removing income from the public one. It's very similar to the effect of private schools in large cities. There are great schools that are very expensive and then public schools close by which are absolute shitholes. I'm not exactly advocating that we do away with private schools (or maybe I am, I don't know), but my point is that injecting capitalism into an industry doesn't always provide the greatest benefit all around.

    18. Re:Does that include by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      In Canada, all doctors are paid at the same level. If you worked in a private hospice clinic doing hernia surgery for instance, you were paid the same if you were working a *insert hospital at city*. Usually in the 280k-400k range depending on your years of service and so on. As well, in Canada your teachers wages are generally not all the much out-of-sync with private or public school. The differences are usually around $5k/year or less. The US has far bigger problems in this area compared to Canada because there is far bigger problems with criminality in those inner city schools, and lack of moral and ethical teaching.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
  3. Now put the Fox intro music back on Star Wars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Seriously The Force Awakens just felt wrong just going straight into the movie without it.

    1. Re:Now put the Fox intro music back on Star Wars by omnichad · · Score: 1

      On that subject, this is a seriously long way to go to get the rights to release the original, unaltered trilogy a few years early (the rights revert in 2020).

    2. Re:Now put the Fox intro music back on Star Wars by Rhipf · · Score: 1

      According to Lucas they can't release the original unaltered trilogy. The negatives were somehow damaged around the time he was working on the "Special Editions" and it would be too expensive to fix them.

    3. Re:Now put the Fox intro music back on Star Wars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They can't because Lucas's ex-wife Marsha would get about 50% of the proceeds as per the divorce settlement. The revamped original trilogy with all the "extras" to get around the divorce and give her nothing.

  4. Competitor to Google and Facebook? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nah, better to nuke 'em from orbit.

  5. At least Fox News isn't getting sold off by Baron_Yam · · Score: 4, Funny

    We wouldn't want that bastion of fair and balanced quality journalism to be tainted by Disney.

    1. Re:At least Fox News isn't getting sold off by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 3, Funny

      Why? Fox news seems to be managed by Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck, though.

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    2. Re:At least Fox News isn't getting sold off by antdude · · Score: 1

      And Goofy!

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  6. Fox News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    It's like the media in the SOVIET UNION.

    1. Re:Fox News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where fake news streams YOU!

    2. Re:Fox News by randomErr · · Score: 1

      Like CNN, MSNBCS, OANN, Twiiter, Facebook, ect. ?

      --
      You say things that offend me and I can deal with it. Can you?
    3. Re:Fox News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if u think fox news is honest u need 2 watch this

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bm-CEqz6W58

      what a bunch of crap

    4. Re:Fox News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Holy Shit. Sean Hannity got fat!

  7. Boycott Disney by theguyfromsaturn · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That's it. I'm Boycotting all Disney products. I hope people wake up and start doing this before they completely destroy the entertainment industry. I was feeling uneasy about them for a while, but this is the last straw. They need to be made to divest of a large part of their recent acquisitions. This kind of monopoly is good for no one.

    --
    I like my dinosaurs feathery, and my pterosaurs hairy (or is it pycnofibery?)
    1. Re:Boycott Disney by Baron_Yam · · Score: 1

      In this case, doesn't it at least mean that some media IP is no longer split between rivals, so we can see all our favourite characters from the same universe in the same movies?

      We want movies that pander to us (though we have different ideas as to how that pandering should be done). This will allow more committee-based movies to check more boxes for focus groups and give us what we want.

      It won't destroy quality thought-provoking movies... there's always another generation of talented people trying to break into the industry. It means that the mindless big budget blockbusters are slightly more likely to appeal to us... and if they do, be immediately followed up by 200 cheap direct-to-video cartoon sequels with plots that are too simple for the average five year old.

    2. Re:Boycott Disney by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      just torrent their shit.

    3. Re:Boycott Disney by MitchDev · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Used DVDs/Blu-rays are a good deal and the media corps get NOTHING from the resales...

    4. Re:Boycott Disney by CODiNE · · Score: 1

      As far as the Fantastic Four goes, apparently FOX leases that from a smaller company that acquired the rights long ago. So they won't be in Avengers 4 or anything.

      --
      Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
    5. Re: Boycott Disney by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you buy a used Disney disc you take one off the market. Somwbody without your convictions will then have to buy a new one.

    6. Re:Boycott Disney by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As far as the Fantastic Four goes, apparently FOX leases that from a smaller company that acquired the rights long ago. So they won't be in Avengers 4 or anything.

      Don't care about them as much as I'm bummed that the Silver Surfer still won't be a part of the Infinity Gem saga, he was a major part of it in the comics.

    7. Re:Boycott Disney by squiggleslash · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yeah, let's start that boycott in a few weeks though, I wouldn't want to miss the new Star Wars movie.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    8. Re:Boycott Disney by ranton · · Score: 2

      As far as the Fantastic Four goes, apparently FOX leases that from a smaller company that acquired the rights long ago. So they won't be in Avengers 4 or anything.

      Any confusion over whether or not Fantastic Four would be part of this deal was put to rest today by Disney. Read the actual press release and you will see Fantastic Four was included in this deal.

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    9. Re:Boycott Disney by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This kind of monopoly is good for no one.

      I am honestly struggling to determine if this even matters. Right now the entertainment industry is a cartel. With consolidation it moves toward a monopoly. From my perspective, what is the difference? Does it really matter? These companies will continue to purchase Congressmen and diarrhea all over the copyright clause of the U.S. Constitution either way.

    10. Re:Boycott Disney by mallyn · · Score: 1

      Yes, and become part of the 24 percent of internet traffic that is of pirated excrement from the entertainment industry! What the original founders of the Arpanet (predecessor of the internet) have never even thought of!

      --
      Most Respectfully Yours Mark Allyn Bellingham, Washington
    11. Re: Boycott Disney by MitchDev · · Score: 1

      Or they'll just D/L it. Garage sales can be great for DVDs too, especially from families where the kids have all grown up and moved away :)

      Harder to find valuable collectibles there anymore, but sometimes you get lucky. AMazing how much you can turn around an old box of Pokemon Cards if the "right ones" are in there....

  8. Competitor? by coofercat · · Score: 1

    As things stand, you can't get Disney films on Netflix (I believe there's one star wars film on there right now, possibly as a test or something). If Disney buys 21st Century, then there'll be even less on Netflix as those titles get removed as well.

    One wonders if this can be seen as Disney becoming a 'better competitor' or just muscling out the opposition. Netflix offers something Disney seem incapable of - that is, what the customer actually wants, rather than what a big media company says they can have. Loss of content on Netflix doesn't seem like we're moving forwards, but knowing how US regulators are, it's probably where we're headed.

    1. Re:Competitor? by Baron_Yam · · Score: 1

      >As things stand, you can't get Disney films on Netflix (I believe there's one star wars film on there right now, possibly as a test or something).

      I suspect that would be, "A New Hope", because Disney doesn't own that until this deal goes through. Once it does, they'll pull it from Netflix to support their own streaming offerings instead.

    2. Re:Competitor? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope, Rogue One.

    3. Re:Competitor? by nine-times · · Score: 1

      As things stand, you can't get Disney films on Netflix

      That's not true. I remember seeing Moana on there recently. They have a bunch of Marvel films. The Marvel TV shows are produced jointly by Netflix and Disney. Rogue One is on Netflix. I think there may be a Pixar film or two.

      I'm not arguing with your larger point, which is that Disney has gotten awfully big, and we should be on the lookout for anticompetitive practices. However, it's not true that there's no Disney content on Netflix.

    4. Re:Competitor? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is only because they do not have their own streaming competitor up yet, they have already announced that they are working on a service, and once all the netflix contracts are up they will not be renewed. IMO they should just buy out netflix, or alt least buy a bigger stake in it and just push that established company more, than setting something up from scratch.

    5. Re:Competitor? by EvilSS · · Score: 1

      As things stand, you can't get Disney films on Netflix.

      That's not true at all. They cut a deal that runs through 2019 for most new Disney titles to go to Netflix like 3 months after home media release. Plus a ton of back catalog. Just go there and login and search for Disney. TONS of Disney movies on Netflix.

      --
      I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
    6. Re:Competitor? by coofercat · · Score: 1

      I have to disagree - maybe it's by location. I just tried the search you suggested, and I got:

      James and the giant peach
      strange magic
      tomorrow lands
      star wars force awakens
      avengers
      thor
      antman
      ghost patrol
      air buddies
      kate and mim mim
      Air bud
      Wild Ride
      Air Bud
      Jake's buccaneer blast
      Yo Kai Watch
      Harry Bunnie
      Air Bud
      Fangbone
      Walt before Mickey
      Air Bud

      So apart from a couple of exceptions, almost none of that list is actually Disney.

    7. Re:Competitor? by coofercat · · Score: 1

      I replied to someone else below you with the results of a search for "disney" on the netflix phone app. With a couple of notable exceptions, almost no disney on (my) Netflix. Some are on Amazon, but you have to pay for them there.

      I'll also say I'm not too sad about that - we've inherited lots of DVDs from the family/friends, so with only a couple of exceptions, we're not giving Disney any actual money for films, either directly through sales or indirectly through streaming services.

    8. Re:Competitor? by pr0fessor · · Score: 1

      If you are looking for Disney content on Netflix you should look in the children and family section. Netflix has a deal with Disney and a lot of Disney content though if that deal ends then yes it going to hurt Netflix it will almost wipe out their children's sections.

    9. Re:Competitor? by coofercat · · Score: 1

      Nope - still not there. A Force Awakens, and a couple of others, but that's it from Disney. See below for a full list.

      It seems it varies by region. Should have known really.

    10. Re:Competitor? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >As things stand, you can't get Disney films on Netflix (I believe there's one star wars film on there right now, possibly as a test or something).

      I suspect that would be, "A New Hope", because Disney doesn't own that until this deal goes through. Once it does, they'll pull it from Netflix to support their own streaming offerings instead.

      It's not, it's Rogue One.

      Disney and Netflix have a first pay TV window deal in the US, which covers all of their films released theatrically between late 2015 and 2019, including Star Wars and Marvel.

      That is the deal that ends in 2019 and Disney have announced won't be renewed in lieu of their new service (in the US, again, things are different internationally. For example Sky, not Netflix, has the first pay window rights in the UK. As Disney have just bought Sky I doubt that will be pulled any time in the foreseeable).

      Films older that 2015 were only on Netflix for the odd shorter window on a piecemeal, smaller basis anyway. The original trilogy wasn't licensed to Netflix at any point, and probably wasn't ever going to be as the rights were split between Disney and Fox and neither party was very interested in hitting the Blu-ray/iTunes sales anyway.

    11. Re:Competitor? by EvilSS · · Score: 1

      Are you outside the US? In the US there are hundreds of Disney films available. Mulan, Hercules, Beauty and the Beast, Pocahontas, Moana, Zootpia, Finding Dory, The Jungle Book, Atlantis, Pirates of the Caribbean, Mulan II, GotG Vol 2... The list goes on and on.

      Also we should discuss what you consider "a couple" because in my part of the world 20 isn't even close.

      --
      I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
  9. 21st Century Assets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Note they said "most" not all.
    A list non the less.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assets_owned_by_21st_Century_Fox

  10. Walt Disney would be rolling over in his grave... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...if he wasn't a frozen head in a jar.

  11. Enjoy renting by AHuxley · · Score: 1

    the back catalog for ever. For every stream of a movie.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    1. Re:Enjoy renting by omnichad · · Score: 1

      They currently still sell physical media. For the older movies, 1080p is enough to pass down for a few generations, until playing physical media is completely impossible. DMCA will hopefully relax on AACS when DVD/Blu-Ray players come off the market (not that my Blu-Rays aren't already ripped).

  12. Liberals WIN !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With Fox finally rolled under Disney's control the conservative rednecks will not have any news outlet to listen too

    1. Re: Liberals WIN !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This deal doesnâ(TM)t include the propaganda arm of FOX.

    2. Re:Liberals WIN !! by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      21st Century Fox != Fox News

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
  13. Another Mickey Mouse move from Di$ney by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    as I expect posters here will soon say.

  14. Online video? by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

    I must have missed something: what online video capability does Fox have? They are just buying the content.

    1. Re:Online video? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is the point: in order for Disney to be able to launch their own, viable online video service, they need to have enough content.

    2. Re:Online video? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hulu. Fox owns 30% + the 30% Disney currently owns.

    3. Re:Online video? by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Well...they did promise to have a streaming service soon. Didn't know they'd try brute force buying out an existing one. Though that might be one of the few ways they even get subscribers.

    4. Re:Online video? by Daetrin · · Score: 1

      Back when they first announced the plan i agreed with you. "They want us to subscribe to _another_ online service just to watch some Disney and Pixar movies and whatever they show on Disney TV? No thanks!"

      Now however, they can presumably arrange it so that Hulu, or a new online service of their own, has all the Disney and Pixar movies, the Star Wars movies, the Simpsons, Futurama, X-Files, Buffy, Firefly, Orville, Family Guy, How I Met Your Mother, Glee, MASH, Arrested Development, American Horror Story, and far too many other shows to list them all here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      I don't know if the exact details of what all they picked up are publicly available, but given the price and scope described I'm guessing they got at least a majority of that stuff. Assuming Disney is smart enough to get a lot of it online ASAP i think that would make a powerhouse of an online service.

      On an aside, as a SoCal resident i am curious about what exactly the terms are of Universal Studios' agreement to have the Simpsons in their park. For their sake i hope the terms specify exclusive theme park rights regardless of who the current owner is, but if so it'll be a bit funny to go to Universal Studio and see what are technically Disney characters :)

      --
      This Space Intentionally Left Blank
  15. Yay, More Monopolies! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I believe in low regulation, but think the government needs to step in when the market becomes uncommunicative, whether that be the desktop OS market, the internet service provider market, the search engine market or the movie industry. Unfortunately, both parties are now bought and paid for by industry, and are completely unwilling to intervene in uncompetitive markets.

    An increasing number of markets are tending towards monopolies, and in all cases the company in charge is abusing that monopoly. Rather than intervene, the government actively encourages them, banning community run ISPs, allowing mergers and removing barriers to abuse.

    What we have is not capitalism and the free market, it's more like a corrupt soviet system run by a small number of elites. We desperately need to restore a competitive market place by splitting up monopoly companies.

    1. Re:Yay, More Monopolies! by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      I believe in low regulation,

      except for when you are inconvenienced by businesses.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    2. Re:Yay, More Monopolies! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What we have is not capitalism and the free market

      capitalism != free market

  16. Potential major power shift by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    Rupert Murdoch is probably the most politically powerful person on Earth. If he's giving up his news channels and newspapers, he could fall a few places and leave an opening for the current #2, Mark Zuckerberg.

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    1. Re:Potential major power shift by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And when this deal goes through he will be the biggest single holder of Disney shares.

  17. Your local FSN $5-6/mo + must be in basic level by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    Your local FSN $5-6/mo + must be in basic level

    1. Re:Your local FSN $5-6/mo + must be in basic level by EvilSS · · Score: 1

      FSN isn't part of the deal

      --
      I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
  18. Fox news = GOP news network! by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 0, Troll

    Fox news = GOP news network!

    1. Re: Fox news = GOP news network! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What does your random opinion statement have to do with the topic of discussion?

    2. Re: Fox news = GOP news network! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well since his post involves Fox it's semi relevant and accurate.

    3. Re: Fox news = GOP news network! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It adds no more value than saying CNN is the Donkey News Network. Every media outlet has a target audience, and plays tp that bias. The idea of truly neutral reporting is inherently flawed.

    4. Re:Fox news = GOP news network! by Mashiki · · Score: 0, Troll

      Fox news = GOP news network!

      So.....

      ABC, NBC, CBS, NPR, WAPO, USAToday, Boston Globe, and several dozen others = DNC news network!

      Right?

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    5. Re:Fox news = GOP news network! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fox news = GOP news network!

      So.....

      ABC, NBC, CBS, NPR, WAPO, USAToday, Boston Globe, and several dozen others = DNC news network!

      Right?

      Oh Mashiki, just because you live in a world of fantasy and everybody is calling you out on your lies and fabrications, doesn't mean you're Cassandra.

      What's ironic is that last night, my Congressman had a conference call last night, in between his self-serving praise for himself and his phony accomplishments, many of the callers who got on couldn't understand why people weren't marching like lemmings to do whatever the Great and Powerful Trump demanded.

      It's like they don't realize he is massively unpopular, incredibly ineffective, and only exists for his own self-aggrandizement, which despite his own blandishments, a larger share of the country actually recognized and rejected.

      You'd fit right in with their mindset though, can't realize their shit does stink.

    6. Re:Fox news = GOP news network! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Call me back when any of those networks gets caught colluding with the DNC the way Fox colluded with the GOP.

      Or better yet, don't call me at all you nazi.

    7. Re:Fox news = GOP news network! by Mashiki · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Call me back when any of those networks gets caught colluding with the DNC

      CNN politico Washington Post. That's all from the 2016 election cycle, they all colluded. So did all those other networks I listed, you can find them all right in the DNC email leaks. There's dozens on top of dozens of stories on major networks getting caught sending stories to the DNC to make sure the narrative was correct, directly publishing articles from the DNC. Hell Donna Brazille was caught giving the Clinton camp debate questions before the debate from CNN. You get that? They all colluded.

      Or better yet, don't call me at all you nazi.

      And the current state of the political left rears it's head. Anyone who dares to question the narrative = nazi. You truly are pathetic people.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    8. Re:Fox news = GOP news network! by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      That's why the DNC email leaks showed that there were multiple reporters from those organizations who leaked/wrote stories/directly published DNC material right? So what does that mean? You have a single media organization "fox" which has GOP support. And everyone else with DNC support...gee...who can't realize their shit doesn't stink.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    9. Re:Fox news = GOP news network! by SvnLyrBrto · · Score: 2

      Um... no.

      To get to media sources that are slanted to the left as far as fox lists to the right you need to leave broadcast and mainstream print behind entirely, and sink to the levels of websites like Indymedia and DailyKos. And even then, those sites have the modicum of integrity to wear their bias in their sleeves and refrain from claiming to be either "news" or "fair and balanced".

      --
      Imagine all the people...
    10. Re:Fox news = GOP news network! by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Which is why they all colluded with the DNC right? CNN politico washington post donna brazille handing debate questions to the clinton camp before a debate and on, and on and on and on.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    11. Re:Fox news = GOP news network! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like I'm going to give any mind to your stormfront conspiracies.

      I already saw your other comment denying transpeople's right to exist so all your opinions are trash as far as I'm concerned.

    12. Re:Fox news = GOP news network! by ranton · · Score: 1

      Fox news = GOP news network!

      So.....

      ABC, NBC, CBS, NPR, WAPO, USAToday, Boston Globe, and several dozen others = DNC news network!

      Right?

      It is surprising how effective it is to ignore the truth enough that nearly every news network spends significant air time pointing out your lies, so that you can then claim nearly every news network is biased against you. I wouldn't have believed it without seeing it, but actually works on people really well.

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    13. Re:Fox news = GOP news network! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hell Donna Brazille was caught giving the Clinton camp debate questions before the debate from CNN. You get that? They all colluded.

      It's interesting you mention that specific example. Clinton did get debate questions in advance but in the debate in question she wasn't debating against Trump - she was debating against Bernie Sanders and other candidates for the Democratic nomination. Trump then turned this into fake news and falsely claimed that Clinton had gotten the questions to the Clinton vs Trump debate in advance.

    14. Re:Fox news = GOP news network! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How much do you get paid from Trumputin, Mashiki?

    15. Re:Fox news = GOP news network! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wikileaks is not a credible source. You could put literally anything on there and call it a leak.

    16. Re:Fox news = GOP news network! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's why the DNC email leaks showed that there were multiple reporters from those organizations who leaked/wrote stories/directly published DNC material right? So what does that mean? You have a single media organization "fox" which has GOP support. And everyone else with DNC support...gee...who can't realize their shit doesn't stink.

      Oh Mashiki, you know there's more than Fox chasing after the GOP tail. There's a whole host of AM radio providers, good ole Sinclair Broadcasting, and the websites you check with fanatical devotion even as they lie to you.

    17. Re:Fox news = GOP news network! by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      It is surprising how effective it is to ignore the truth enough that nearly every news network spends significant air time pointing out your lies, so that you can then claim nearly every news network is biased against you. I wouldn't have believed it without seeing it, but actually works on people really well.

      Isn't it funny that when you live in an ideological echo chamber, and don't see the media from an outsiders point of view that you fail to understand exactly how slanted the media is in particular directions. You know, kinda like how 95% of reporters in the beltway are registered democrats and vote democrat.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    18. Re:Fox news = GOP news network! by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      It's interesting you mention that specific example. Clinton did get debate questions in advance but in the debate in question she wasn't debating against Trump -

      4ac's and you've still managed to get it wrong. I find it odd, but funny just how far people are willing to defend handing off debate questions in any case at all. But "it was against sanders" you screech, as if that somehow makes it better.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    19. Re:Fox news = GOP news network! by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Oh Mashiki, you know there's more than Fox chasing after the GOP tail. There's a whole host of AM radio providers, good ole Sinclair Broadcasting, and the websites you check with fanatical devotion even as they lie to you.

      So you're saying I'm right, that the DNC email leaks happened. That multiple organizations were working and/or handing things off to media or back to the DNC for prior publication. Otherwise, you'd actually be able to dispute something rather then cry about some nonsense.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    20. Re:Fox news = GOP news network! by ranton · · Score: 1

      You know, kinda like how 95% of reporters in the beltway are registered democrats and vote democrat.

      You would think it would be easy to see that a profession with the goal of keeping people informed and exposing the truth, that also tends to lean strongly to one side of the political spectrum, is highly indicative of which side of the political spectrum aligns closer to the truth.

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
  19. Now only south park can bash the mouse Simpsons by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    Now only south park can bash the mouse the Simpsons will be banned from doing it!

    1. Re:Now only south park can bash the mouse Simpsons by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      The Simpsons? Is that still a thing?

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    2. Re:Now only south park can bash the mouse Simpsons by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

      http://ftw.usatoday.com/2017/1...

    3. Re:Now only south park can bash the mouse Simpsons by omnichad · · Score: 2

      Right around the time they moved to HD, they actually had a bit of a resurgence. I'll admit I hadn't watched it for nearly a decade when I picked up again, but I've been watching ever since. It's been hit and miss, but that's always been the case. A different dynamic, but a good one.

    4. Re:Now only south park can bash the mouse Simpsons by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      ... they didn't happen to predict Bitcoin at one million dollars by any chance?

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
  20. Disney will have to much NFL now! by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    Disney will have to much NFL now!

  21. Concentration of Intellectual Property? by substance2003 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Am I the only one that worries about this? Disney has been gobbling up IP for the last few years with Marvel and LucasFilms and with the acquisition of Fox's movies (which include some of Marvel's IP) I find it to be a bit much. It also means there will be one less studio out there making movies in a world where other studios such as Sony and Paramount are reporting losses. There were even rumors of Sony wanting to sell their movie studio. Will Disney eat them up too in some near future?

    1. Re:Concentration of Intellectual Property? by chispito · · Score: 2

      other studios such as Sony and Paramount are reporting losses

      I do not think that means what you think it means.

      --
      The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
    2. Re:Concentration of Intellectual Property? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      No it's pretty much exactly as he said. Sony Pictures reported a Net Loss of over $900mil last year. Now admittedly that was due in part to close to a $1bn writedown in its movie business (which is itself a reflection of profitability) but a movie studio making less than $50m is virtually unheard of. Of course Sony's 4 big movies that year were a huge flop grossing some $350m. For comparison Spectre alone grossed over $1bn the year before.

      Sony spent the best part of this year justifying to shareholders and the media why it isn't selling off the drain on its profits.

    3. Re:Concentration of Intellectual Property? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      https://slashdot.org/~substance2003 inquired:

      Am I the only one that worries about this? Disney has been gobbling up IP for the last few years with Marvel and LucasFilms and with the acquisition of Fox's movies (which include some of Marvel's IP) I find it to be a bit much. It also means there will be one less studio out there making movies in a world where other studios such as Sony and Paramount are reporting losses. There were even rumors of Sony wanting to sell their movie studio. Will Disney eat them up too in some near future?

      Oh, it's much MUCH worse than that.

      In addition to snorking up other entities' IP like it was Bolivian marching powder, Disney has also continued to pursue a truly evil campaign that Walt himself started a LONG time ago: it takes public domain characters (such as Snow White, etc.) and converts them into trademarked IP of its own. If you've been paying attention to the Disney series Once Upon a TIme, you know that the Mouse has mixed in characters from all kinds of mythologies over the years, from Jules Verne's Captain Nemo to Captain Hook, all of which are now trademarked by Disney.

      Yes, you're theoretically entitled under US copyright law to produce content that incorporates those characters, if you wish. The problem is that, if your physical depiction of them bears even a slight resemblence to Disney's version, the Mouse will sue the living crap out of you for infringing its trademarks. And Walt's zombie empire has lots and lots and LOTS of money to spend on lawyers, while individual artists and small production companies pretty much universally don't.

      What makes Disney's scheme even more putrid is that, while even the current, ludicrously overinflated copyrights eventually time out, trademarks, by design, never do. As long as you can demonstrate that you actively protect the trademarks you've registered by the use of tactics as inexpensive as cease-and-desist letters, your claim remains valid under trademark law throughout the developed world. So, long after Robert Iger's great-grandchildren have turned to dust, the Mouse will still be legally entitled to claim trademarks on Captains Nemo and Hook - and a gigantic host of other characters from such nominally public-domain sources as Aesop, the brothers Grimm, and Mother Goose.

      And you thought Disney smelled bad on the OUTSIDE ..

      (Posting as AC only to keep from undoing previous upmods in this thread.)

      --

      Check out my novel.

    4. Re:Concentration of Intellectual Property? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right.

      Big films make losses. As much as they can. Studios don't.

    5. Re:Concentration of Intellectual Property? by philmarcracken · · Score: 1

      They don't care about entertainment value, only money. But art and business, especially risk averse suits, do not mix. The masses will smell the stench of stale, watered down pandering sooner or later.

  22. So the obvious question is by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    Does that include Firefly? And will Disney let it rot, or rape the corpse?

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    1. Re:So the obvious question is by turp182 · · Score: 1

      They will rape the corpse AND then let it rot.

      So both.

      --
      BlameBillCosby.com
    2. Re:So the obvious question is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      River Tam will become a Disney Princess, in this movie.

      https://www.explainxkcd.com/wi...

    3. Re:So the obvious question is by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      It's going to be Firefly reboot, with Tinker Bell as "the firefly".

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    4. Re:So the obvious question is by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      They will rape the corpse AND then let it rot.
      So both.

      So like Reavers, then?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  23. $52.4 billion!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    holy fuck, they *really* REALLY want that first star wars movie.

  24. This has to due with the marvel stuff. by Truekaiser · · Score: 3, Insightful

    21st century fox has the licenses for spiderman and x-men. Disney has said they want all marvel properties under one roof...

    1. Re:This has to due with the marvel stuff. by Gojira+Shipi-Taro · · Score: 1

      Sony has Spider-Man, and they've made a deal with Disney.

      Fox has X-Men and Fantastic Four.

      --
      "Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
    2. Re:This has to due with the marvel stuff. by EvilSS · · Score: 1

      Actually Fox doesn't have Fantastic Four, they just have a deal with Constantin Film to produce films under their license. Constantin Film owns the license.

      --
      I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
    3. Re:This has to due with the marvel stuff. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe Fox only has distribution rights for Fantastic Four. Everything I have read is "Constantin Film" owns the rights to it. I'm guessing their deal with Fox will transfer over to Disney, but who knows.

    4. Re:This has to due with the marvel stuff. by ranton · · Score: 2

      Actually Fox doesn't have Fantastic Four, they just have a deal with Constantin Film to produce films under their license. Constantin Film owns the license.

      Read the actual press release and you will see Fantastic Four was included in this deal.

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    5. Re:This has to due with the marvel stuff. by cmdr_klarg · · Score: 1

      21st century fox has the licenses for spiderman and x-men. Disney has said they want all marvel properties under one roof...

      The only thing I like about this is that Fox won't be able to make any more shitty movies with the Marvel IP. Fan4stick was atrocious.

      --
      THE SOFTWARE, IT NO WORKY!!!
    6. Re:This has to due with the marvel stuff. by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      Actually, Fox does have the Fantastic Four film rights. They were explicitly stated to be included in this deal, so it's likely that one of the renegotiations over the rights throughout the years (e.g. in 1994 when Marvel bought out the low-budget Fantastic Four film to spike its release, or around 2000 when Fox and Constantin negotiated an extension to the rights) resulted in Fox buying out Constantin's rights, perhaps in exchange for some other obligation, such as being required to attach Constantin to each subsequent entry in the series.

    7. Re:This has to due with the marvel stuff. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      learn how to spell you fucking idiot trump supporter.

    8. Re:This has to due with the marvel stuff. by EvilSS · · Score: 1

      That doesn't actually mean they got the right backs, only that they can at some point make the films. It's plausible that Fox and Constantin had an exclusive production deal that Disney will now inherit. Similar to the deal that Disney cut with Sony for Spider-man.

      --
      I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
    9. Re:This has to due with the marvel stuff. by EvilSS · · Score: 1

      Yea I read the same article and that's all speculation on the author's part.

      --
      I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
  25. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  26. Good luck Disney by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you succeed in killing netflix I guess I will renew my subscription to the piratebay.

  27. Marvel and Star Wars by sjbe · · Score: 2

    So this would bring Deadpool, the Xmen, Wolverine, The Fantastic Four, Star Wars: A New Hope, and a large catalog of other content under the Disney brand. I think the only major Marvel property they wouldn't own would be Spiderman which Sony has the rights to and Sony is playing nice.

    Of course there is a lot of other content and assets owned by Fox.

    1. Re:Marvel and Star Wars by EvilSS · · Score: 2

      Constantin Film owns the FF4 film rights, they just have a deal with Fox to produce the films for them.

      --
      I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
    2. Re:Marvel and Star Wars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think Fox only leased the Fantastic Four, they don't own it.

    3. Re:Marvel and Star Wars by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      Now try to imagine Kingdom Hearts 4...

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    4. Re:Marvel and Star Wars by tepples · · Score: 1

      And after the acquisition, they have a deal with Disney to produce the films for them.

    5. Re:Marvel and Star Wars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now try to imagine Kingdom Hearts 4...

      I can't; that won't be ready before the heat death of the universe.

    6. Re:Marvel and Star Wars by ausekilis · · Score: 1

      I wanna see Hulk smash the Death Star. There's probably some other universe mashups that would be awesome too.

    7. Re:Marvel and Star Wars by EvilSS · · Score: 2

      Yea there are a few options on the table. Disney takes over the Fox role, producing the films for Constantin. Disney buys back the rights (Constantin's parent company might be up for that, they need the money). Disney uses the Fox exclusive production deal (if it's worded to allow it) with Constantin to run out the clock on a rights-reversion clause by refusing to produce new films.

      --
      I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
  28. Theatrical cut of Sar Wars... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    hopefully this is the real motivation. Fox has the rights to it still and has no interest in releasing it... Lucas doesn't want it out there... but if Disney owns the 1977 film rights and the Star Wars franchise rights, Lucas can no longer stop them.

    Remember kids, it's not episode IV: A New Hope... just "Star Wars" where Jabba is not to be seen and Hahn definitely shoots first.

    While they are at it... theatrical cuts of Empire and Jedi as well... the original emperor was freaking creepy.

    1. Re:Theatrical cut of Sar Wars... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is why Star Wars for me still only exists in memory and on VHS.

    2. Re:Theatrical cut of Sar Wars... by chispito · · Score: 1

      hopefully this is the real motivation. Fox has the rights to it still and has no interest in releasing it... Lucas doesn't want it out there... but if Disney owns the 1977 film rights and the Star Wars franchise rights, Lucas can no longer stop them.

      Remember kids, it's not episode IV: A New Hope... just "Star Wars" where Jabba is not to be seen and Hahn definitely shoots first.

      While they are at it... theatrical cuts of Empire and Jedi as well... the original emperor was freaking creepy.

      I have the DVD set where they include a letter boxed, un-remastered original cut along with the new version.

      --
      The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
    3. Re:Theatrical cut of Sar Wars... by omnichad · · Score: 1

      There are still copies of the original out there if you take the time to look.

    4. Re:Theatrical cut of Sar Wars... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But they are limited editions not easily obtainable and letterboxed. It was never a proper DVD release, just a dump of the old laser disk. They need to issue it in the best quality available... bluray, anamorphic even if it doesn't look as nice as the director's cut for technical reasons.

  29. Oh really? by JBMcB · · Score: 1

    On Netflix as of right now:

    Lilo & Stitch
    Lilo & Stich 2
    Leroy & Stitch
    Moana
    Mulan
    Hercules
    Zootopia
    Finding Dory
    Atlantis
    Tarzan II
    Kronk's New Groove
    An Extremely Goofy Movie
    Phineas & Ferb
    A bunch of the Tinkerbell movies
    Fox & Hound
    Mickey's Christmas Carol
    Pete's Dragon
    The BFG

    That's all I'm going to bother to list, but there are dozens more.

    --
    My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
    1. Re:Oh really? by coofercat · · Score: 1

      Lucky you - see above for my list - just a couple here.

  30. Re:Disney Cryptocurrency by Baron_Yam · · Score: 1

    No. Why would a private corporation want a blockchain currency whose security would depend on maintaining more processing power on the network than the rest of the world combined?

    They could (if they haven't already via a partnership with Visa or other major entity) issue a DisneyCard and require it for transactions with their empire.

  31. Are you kidding me? by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

    Disney now has enough muscle to become a true competitor to Netflix, Apple, Amazon, Google and Facebook in the fast-growing realm of online video.

    Netflix: movies and TV shows including exclusives.
    Apple: for now, simply a reseller/renting service, nothing else.
    Amazon: movies and TV shows including exclusives, but AFAIK a lot smaller than Netflix - at least in Canada.
    Google: YouTube is for short videos, not full movies.
    Facebook: Are you kidding me? FUCK FACEBOOK.

    They did not mention Crackle, Sony's ad-ridden streaming service that cuts the video ANYWHERE to show the same fucking three ads in rotation a half-dozen times every hour. They also have some exclusives.

    They also didn't mention Hulu.

    Disney + 21st Century Fox has potential, as long as they're not planning to ask a higher monthly fee than Netflix. People are fucking tired of paying fees for multiple similar services.

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
  32. Why stop there? Buy DC as well.... by Danathar · · Score: 1

    They could easily buy the right to DC as well if the price was right.

    1. Re:Why stop there? Buy DC as well.... by q4Fry · · Score: 1

      They could easily buy the right to DC as well if the price was right.

      I thought Disney already had a controlling stake in DC: the Copyright Office, the trademark part of USPTO, and a couple hundred legislators.

  33. X-Men and Fantastic For by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... The only thing that concerns me about this is that they get the acquisition done in time to include the bodies of the Fantastic Four in the X-Men among those killed by Thanos in Avengers Infinity War. Going forward, maybe Marvel can make something out of the mess that is FF

  34. This is bad news for all of us by backwardsposter · · Score: 1

    I'm sure we've all felt a disturbance...

  35. No, NOT Fox News by p51d007 · · Score: 2

    Before you get all giddy, this won't affect Fox News.

    1. Re:No, NOT Fox News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Q. Why did Fox News fire Bill O'Reilly?

      A. He was fucking goofy.

    2. Re:No, NOT Fox News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure it will.

      The talent is going to have to be as cheap as the content.

  36. Time Warner as well? by tepples · · Score: 2

    DC is part of Warner Bros. Buying Warner would bring Daffy Duck and Donald Duck under the same umbrella, which I imagine would raise antitrust suspicion even in a Republican administration.

    1. Re:Time Warner as well? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Buying Warner would bring Daffy Duck and Donald Duck under the same umbrella

      Don't leave out Howard!

    2. Re:Time Warner as well? by BobTheJanitor · · Score: 1

      It worked pretty well in Who Framed Roger Rabbit.

  37. Need more space stories! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Disney knows the spell is wearing off, and is looking for more space stories.

    Now, they've got Star Wars, Firefly, Aliens, and who knows what else.

    Believe in SPACE! Believe in a round, spinning Earth!

    Space is fake. The Earth is flat. Gyroscopes don't move; hard drives don't either. The weak, yellow, winter Sun can't happen on a sphere Earth. The eclipses prove it is flat.

    Solar Eclipse: https://vimeo.com/230976895
    Light of the chromosphere can be observed on the back of the moon. Allais Effect
    Lunar Eclipse: https://vimeo.com/92378881
    Shadow is black, then changes color to reddish.
    Next lunar eclipse: January 30/31, 2018 North America

  38. Murdoch is the story here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seems that the most important part in all this is that Murdoch is now the largest shareholder in Disney. Things are going to change.

    He took over Disney by selling fox to Disney. Weird shit.

  39. Cue idiotic fake news comments by slshdtisctrldbysjws · · Score: 1

    Honestly, if you're at the point where you get happy because one media company is buying out another, you're acclaiming one demon in favor of another, when both are completely against you. That's about the rock-bottom of brainwashing. Get help, find religion, because you're not handling your life.

    --
    My karma was manually wiped by site staff https://slashdot.org/~slshdtisctrldbysjws 18 mod up, 10 mod down = bad karma
  40. that's nice.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    but 56 billion is a lot to pay for those franchises. it could take 20+ years to recoup that investment. while a bonus to the deal, I doubt it's the real reason.

  41. Apple has more cash than Disney is worth by kwerle · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Apple cash: >200B
    Disney Market Cap: ~166B

    That doesn't seem like a contest.

    1. Re:Apple has more cash than Disney is worth by ausekilis · · Score: 1

      That's because Disney actually spends their money. They bought Lucasfilm and Marvel. They constantly upgrade their theme parks. They have a lot of R&D behind *every* attraction at their parks.

      Apple sells their wares for 4x cost of materials then hides behind Ireland.

    2. Re:Apple has more cash than Disney is worth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's because Disney actually spends their money. They bought Lucasfilm and Marvel. They constantly upgrade their theme parks. They have a lot of R&D behind *every* attraction at their parks.

      Apple sells their wares for 4x cost of materials then hides behind Ireland.

      Whether Apple charges 3X or 4X is up for the market to decide if it is worth buying.

      If the market decides that 4X is okay, then Apple or any other company have made a good impression on the market to accept such pricing.

  42. Disney 60% of Hulu by CrashNBrn · · Score: 1

    After this deal, Disney will own 60% of Hulu.

    Hulu > Owners
    Comcast/NBC: 30%
    21st Century Fox: 30%
    Walt Disney: 30%
    Time Warner: 10%

    With CBS still going at it alone.

  43. Rule of 2.5 Progress by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So it looks like the media production business, at least in the US, is now Disney #1, Sony #2 (though probably not as big as Disney after the merger), and everybody else including all the indies on Youtube and Amazon/Netflix 0.5. Who is left that Sony could buy into in the production game that would make any difference? Or could Amazon or Netflix buy Sony and end-run it?

    On the media side, Comcast & friends should watch their back. Hulu effectively becomes a Disney property with Comcast et al just along for the ride. Disney & Comcast both own old-time network TV, but Disney already has ESPN so they don't need Fox Sports - Murdoch can keep it. The main thing Comcast has that Disney doesn't is a major cable/ISP system; but Disney as a brand is so big that Comcast would get in a lot of trouble if they try to fiddle access to it NN or not. Though wasn't there a rumor a while back that if AT&T couldn't get Time-Warner cable (NOTE: does not include Warner Bros. studio) Disney would bid for it?

    Definitely, we're in the final round of consolidation here. Not to a monopoly, but moving toward effective duopoly with a few small companies tagging along. And unless AT&T can grab a big production/distribution house of their own they will be one of the small-time tag-alongs before long.

  44. I only have one hope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That this results in Disney releasing the theatrical edition of Star Wars, AKA Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope. I like my DVD special edition but would prefer a 4K restoration.

  45. To what end? by LordZardoz · · Score: 1

    Ok, so you think Disney has too much of a monopolistic influence in entertainment. I disagree that it is a significant problem, provided that the contracts of the key content creators they have under their control are not unreasonably coercive. Being a bigger content provider does not worry me. I would be worried if they started buying and operating movie theaters or broadband networks (ie, buying Comcast).

    Disney is fundamentally a creator of content. They own ABC and want to have their own streaming service, but the foundation of their power is the content they create.

    They are not in a position to prevent other groups from creating content, and nothing they do can diminish the quality of the content.

    Putting it another way, you are allowed to like both DC and Marvel comics. You are allowed to like Star Trek and Star wars. You may like one better than the other, but within the constraints of your own time and budget, you are free to enjoy both.

    Unless they are in a position to force customers to be unable to watch competitors offerings, I do not see any real problem here.

    Clearly you see a problem, but what is an ideal situation for you, and how does it change things from how they are now for a typical consumer?

    END COMMUNICATION

    1. Re:To what end? by Trogre · · Score: 1

      Clearly you see a problem, but what is an ideal situation for you, and how does it change things from how they are now for a typical consumer?

      The fact that with more money than God it will now be even easier for them to buy more laws that serve their ends (see theft of the Public Domain for one prime example).

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
  46. Almost right by scdeimos · · Score: 1

    Take the "esh" out of "Reshaping" and you'll have an accurate story title.

  47. Disney princesses? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Like back when Disney bough star wars, and princess Leia became a Disney princess, I wonder who is affected by this change.

    So who are the new Disney princesses?
    Deadpool, for sure. But who else?

  48. To compete with streaming? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    TFS makes it sound like this is all about competing with streaming services. Fox is not into streaming (at least not in any significant manner), so why is this positioned as being something to compete with streaming services? This marriage made in heaven will only result in one dragging the other down if they don't get their act together.