Understanding the film business / Awards

[jo]

FOX Chairman and CEO Stacey Snider is interviewed on her views about the future of the business and the directions of FOX, a year after she took over Jim Gianopulos. The year has been outstanding for FOX as it has had success both for mainstream franchises and arthouse films as well.

variety.com/2017/film/features/stacey-snider-21st-century-fox-first-year-1202563799/


It's a very insightful interview, with an article entitled :

Fox’s Stacey Snider Gets Candid About Netflix, Diversity and the Future of Wolverine

[jo]

Andrew Cripps, FOX President for international theatrical distribution, is optimistic about moviegoing trends because he believes there are no longer distinct seasons when audiences turn up! He also discusses new marketing ploys in international markets.

www.if.com.au/foxs-andrew-cripps-paints-bullish-outlook-cinema/

[jo]

Deadline.com and GoldDerby team up to discuss the coming awards season amid a changed landscape --

*Without Harvey Weinstein who was the most aggressive and most notorious campaigner in recent years ( Thinking aloud : I wonder how many movies and actors/actresses won their Oscars or other awards because of Harvey W's uber aggressive campaigning?) .

*Advent of the film streamers ( Netflix/Amazon) and their possible impact on the awards



deadline.com/2017/10/oscars-deadlines-pete-hammond-and-gold-derbys-tom-oneil-on-the-ever-changing-awards-landscape-as-harvey-is-out-and-streamers-are-in-watch-1202192189/

[jo]

This blog by Stephen Follows seems to be specializing on "film data and education" --

This was written in January 2015 and seems very well-researched and argued.

"How much do Hollywood campaigns for an Oscar cost?"



stephenfollows.com/much-hollywood-campaigns-oscar-cost/


Well-recommended if you are interested in all the numbers that characterize an Oscar campaign!

[jo]

The Wrap correlates Harvey Weinstein's campaigns to success at the Oscars --

www.thewrap.com/httpswww-thewrap-comharvey-weinstein-oscar-campaigns-shakespeare-love-chicago/


*This explains why many people were aghast or dumbfounded with some very unexpected wins at the Oscars. He was also known to mess with the Golden Globes!

*This is why since way back I have always been cynical about the Oscars

[jo]

Kris Tapley ( Variety) ruminates on what is an "OSCAR" movie, given the changing tastes and the changing AMPAS membership profile --

variety.com/2017/film/in-contention/what-is-oscar-movie-1202597359/#article-comments


Do check out the feedback section, too.

[jo]

Will the concept of "dynamic pricing" for movies work?

deadline.com/2017/10/regal-plans-surge-pricing-movie-tests-2018-1202194773/

[jo]

DISNEY -- thy name is GREED!

Maybe "the house that Mickey ( Mouse) built" should change its name to SHYLOCK!

The WALL STREET JOURNAL writes about the uber-onerous terms being imposed by Disney on theatre exhibitors for the coming STAR WARS movie!

Business

Disney Lays Down the Law for Theaters on ‘Star Wars: The Last Jedi’

Exhibitors say the studio’s top-secret terms are the most onerous they have ever seen



Disney is leveraging the box-office force of its ‘Star Wars’ franchise—which draws large crowds to cinemas and events like ‘Force Friday,’ above—to ensure theaters adhere to their terms for the rollout of ‘The Last Jedi.’ Photo: Jeenah Moon/Bloomberg News

By Erich Schwartzel
Updated Nov. 1, 2017 12:28 p.m. ET

146 COMMENTS

LOS ANGELES—The box-office domination of the “Star Wars” franchise has given Walt Disney Co. DIS 1.25% unprecedented power over the nation’s movie theaters.

Before exhibitors can begin screening “Star Wars: The Last Jedi” this December, they must first commit to a set of top-secret terms that numerous theater owners say are the most onerous they have ever seen. Disney will receive about 65% of ticket revenue from the film, a new high for a Hollywood studio. Disney is also requiring theaters to show the movie in their largest auditorium for at least four weeks.


Ignoring the terms carries an unusual penalty. If a theater violates any condition of the distribution agreement, Disney can take an additional 5% cut, bringing the studio’s total haul to 70% of sales on a movie likely to gross more than $500 million at the domestic box office.



The case of “The Last Jedi” highlights a perpetual but growing tension between the business partners that bring movies to the public: studios and theaters. Negotiations between the two parties have grown pitched as Disney has become one of the most powerful studios in Hollywood and theaters have lost leverage as box-office sales fall. Box-office revenue is down 5% so far this year.

‘The Last Jedi,’ starring John Boyega, above, and Mark Hamill, opens on Dec. 15. Disney will receive about 65% of ticket-sales revenue from the film, and is requiring theaters to show the movie in their largest auditorium for at least four weeks. Photo: Industrial Light & Magic/Lucasfilm/Associated Press

The decline is accelerating plans at other studios to narrow the theatrical window and make movies available for home viewing sooner. But Disney has said it wants to preserve the current theatrical model, making the studio an even more indispensable supplier for exhibitors over the long term.

That dynamic has exhibitors across the country resigning themselves to a harsh business reality: If you want to play Disney’s blockbuster movies, get used to Disney’s rules.

“They’re in the most powerful position any studio has ever been in, maybe since MGM in the 1930s,” said one film buyer.

A Disney spokesman declined to comment on the negotiations.

The studio’s slate of surefire hits this year has included “Beauty and the Beast” and “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2,” with “Thor: Ragnarok” coming this weekend.

Last year, with just 13 new releases, Disney accounted for 26% of total domestic box office, according to Box Office Mojo. The No. 2 studio, Time Warner Inc.’s Warner Bros., had a 17% market share with 23 movies. Disney is expected to top the market ranking this year, too.


Disney’s string of hits in recent years—fueled by its acquisition of Marvel Entertainment in 2009 and Lucasfilm in 2012—gives it sway over theater owners, many of whom described the studio as exercising unrivaled control over every detail of a film’s release.

Few operators can afford to turn away a Disney windfall. But some independent theaters have decided against screening “Last Jedi” when it is released, saying the company’s disproportionate share of ticket sales and four-week hold make little economic sense—especially in small towns.

“There’s a finite number of moviegoers in my market, and I can service all of them in a couple of weeks,” said Lee Akin, who operates a single-screen theater in Elkader, Iowa (population: 1,213).


If he were to sign up for the movie under Disney’s terms, Mr. Akin said he would be stuck playing “Last Jedi” to near-empty auditoriums toward the end of a monthlong run while still giving Disney 65% of those paltry sales. The studio is applying the 65% split across all weeks of the film’s release, rather than some studios’ practice of beginning a split at a high figure and then lowering it in subsequent weeks.

“When [studios] get much bigger than the other guys, that’s when all these wacky rules come into place,” said Mr. Akin.
Disney’s rules on “Star Wars” begin before tickets are available online, with the studio outlining presale terms to theaters in contracts that are individually watermarked to prevent exhibitors from leaking them.

Most theatrical releases send about 55% of ticket sales back to studios, though the average split is about 60% on major hits. Hollywood makes more money on tickets sold in the U.S. than in overseas markets, where the split averages about 40%. Disney has deals with some exhibitors that give it less than 65% on “Last Jedi.”


Previous “Star Wars” installments gave Disney 64% of ticket sales and included four-week holds, and other releases from the studio usually require a minimum of two weeks of screenings. But Disney’s 5% penalty for failing to meet terms on “Last Jedi” is unusual. The charge will be implemented for various violations, including if a theater pulls even one “Star Wars” screening from its schedule or begins marketing the movie before Disney gives the go ahead, according to theater operators.

Disney’s terms kick in if ‘The Last Jedi’ collects more than $500 million in the U.S. and Canada, which box-office prognosticators say is a near certainty. The film is expected to draw gargantuan crowds. Here, a fan stands at a booth for the film at an entertainment expo in Auckland, New Zealand, in October. Photo: Photo by Hannah Peters/Getty Images for Disney


The four-week hold in a theater’s largest auditorium, meanwhile, has frustrated distribution executives at rival studios that also have major releases hitting theaters around Christmastime. Soon after the “Last Jedi” opens on Dec. 15, such movies as Sony Pictures Entertainment Inc.’s “Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle” and Twentieth Century Fox’s “The Greatest Showman” will begin jockeying for screen times. Twentieth Century Fox’s owner, 21st Century Fox Inc., and Wall Street Journal parent News Corp share common ownership.


Of course, most exhibitors make more money on concession sales than box office, and a theater receiving 35% of ticket sales on a hit that grosses $700 million fares better than one receiving 50% on a $200 million movie.

Disney’s terms on “Last Jedi” kick in if the movie collects more than $500 million in the U.S. and Canada, which box-office prognosticators say is a near certainty. The studio’s first installment of the space opera, “The Force Awakens,” opened in December 2015 to $248 million and became the highest-grossing domestic movie of all time, collecting $937 million in 2015. “The Last Jedi,” which has Mark Hamill returning as Luke Skywalker, is expected to draw gargantuan crowds.

At Disney’s September ‘Force Friday’ event, ‘Star Wars’ fans lined up at Disney stores, like the New York shop above, to buy new products tied to ‘The Last Jedi.’ Photo: Jeenah Moon/Bloomberg News.

Exhibition executives have already promised impatient investors the movie would help balance out a summer full of duds. Adam Aron, chief executive of No. 1 exhibitor AMC Entertainment Holdings Inc., called “Last Jedi” a “gift from heaven” earlier this year.

Disney’s terms have annoyed theater owners before. In May 2015, a trade group representing theater owners took the rare step of sending Disney a letter outlining “an avalanche of complaints, concerns and fears” from its members over conditions imposed on theaters that wanted to show the studio’s “Avengers: Age of Ultron.”


On the “Avengers” movie, Disney tried to limit matinee discounts and issued a rule stating theaters must use a national-average ticket price when calculating the box-office split. Disney retreated from both rules following the trade group’s letter.


Write to Erich Schwartzel at [e-mail]

Erich Schwarzel writes for THE WALL STREET JOURNAL.

[jo]

Talent agencies, led by WME-IMG's ENDEAVOR, are now moving more aggressively into sales and Financing of content ( end-products, such as movies) --

www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/how-hollywood-agencies-are-making-major-moves-sales-financing-afm-2017-1054121

AFM: How Hollywood Agencies Are Making Major Moves Into Sales and Financing
7:00 AM PDT 11/2/2017 by Scott Roxborough

David M. Bennett/Getty Images
Ken Kao and Alex Walton of sales outfit Bloom


No longer content to simply service talent, ten percenters are now aiming to compete with the studios: "This is really a play to become media content companies."

The agencies are tired of just serving the indie industry. These days, they want to own the store.


The ten percenters have always been a key part of the indie business, finding and grooming talent and putting together packages for sales companies — the FilmNations, Sierra/Affinities and Voltages of the world — to hawk to distributors in the corridors of the Loews at the American Film Market. But increasingly, the agencies are moving from the sidelines onto center stage, becoming directly involved in the financing and sale of indie films, particularly the big ticket items that drive the buzz and business at AFM.

The move, in part, has been one of necessity: As the studios have shifted toward making fewer, bigger tentpoles, it has become harder to get mainstream indie films made — and for the agencies to sell their packages. “To do their job, to get their clients’ films made, agencies have had to take a bigger stake to help bring together financing on these projects,” says Elissa Friedman, vp production and development for sales outfit Covert Media. "The agencies have definitely helped us to put together financing, or help find financing, for our titles."


The trend has been underway for a while now, but it shifted up a notch this summer with Endeavor Content (the rebranded entity comprising WME Global and IMG’s fiim and scripted series finance and sales groups, WME-IMG) taking a majority stake in Ken Kao and Alex Walton’s Bloom, the first time an agency has owned a global sales outfit.


Bloom has one of the hottest slates at the AFM this year, with a lineup that includes the Hugh Jackman-starrer The Front Runner, Jake Scott’s The Burning Woman with Christina Hendricks and Destination Wedding, starring Keanu Reeves and Winona Ryder.


"It’s all about revenue," says one industry insider on the agencies’ strategy. "The agencies are not making enough money to sustain growth by just being service providers and collecting fees, they want to be the owners of their films, to be the distributors — essentially to sell their projects to themselves."

CAA is moving in a similar direction. Though it hasn’t yet become a direct investor in a sales group, it frequently is a co-financier on projects it brings to market and often handles the domestic sales side. UTA, for the moment at least, is mainly holding back and sticking to the traditional, fee-based approach.

David Garrett of Mister Smith Entertainment sees this shift as a “natural step” by the agencies and says it “only helps our side of the business” if agents get more involved, leveraging their “in-depth understanding of the global marketplace and its players” to get projects made outside the studio system.

But others see an inherent conflict of interest in this model, since the agencies, with their insider access to talent, would be in a position as buyers to pick up the best new projects at below-market value. "If a talent agency bought a studio, it would never be allowed, it would be considered a violation of antitrust laws," says a veteran industry player, “but these sales outfits are essentially the same thing, they are financier/ distributors, they just have a lower profile. They aren’t Paramount, so the agencies are getting away with it.”

The agencies also have been escalating their presence and engagement with the expanding China market. In June 2016, Endeavor partnered with Chinese tech giant Tencent to establish the Beijing-based joint venture WME-IMG China; CAA followed in April, pacting with venture capital firm CMC Capital Partners to establish CAA China.

"This is really a play by the agencies to become media content companies,” says one industry observer. “Endeavor doesn’t want to compete with FilmNation. That’s the short- term goal. The longer-term goal is to compete with Fox and Universal.”

Patrick Brzeski contributed to this report.

[jo]

Apropos to the Wall Street Journal article re DISNEY'S onerous terms for the showing of the next STAR WAR movies, it seems there was another development ( an expose on the behavior of Disney as a corporate citizen in Anaheim, Ca) which led to a movie press member asking if DISNEY HAS ACTUALLY BECOME THE EVIL EMPIRE??


www.tracking-board.com/as-disney-prepares-to-release-star-wars-the-last-jedi-the-studio-appears-all-too-eager-to-embrace-the-dark-side/


www.indiewire.com/2017/11/the-los-angeles-times-claims-blacklisted-disney-1201894093/


www.latimes.com/projects/la-fi-disney-anaheim-deals/

[jo]

www.wsj.com/articles/disney-held-talks-to-acquire-assets-of-21st-century-fox-1509994869?tesla=y&mod=e2tw

Disney Held Talks to Acquire Assets of 21st Century Fox

Discussions included FX cable network, Twentieth Century Fox studio and Sky stake


Twentieth Century Fox studio in Los Angeles. Photo: lucy nicholson/Reuters
By Ben Fritz, Dana Mattioli and Joe Flint
Updated Nov. 6, 2017 4:24 p.m. ET



Walt Disney Co. DIS 2.03% recently held talks to buy some of 21st Century Fox ’s cable-television networks, international distribution operations and movie and television studio, according to people close to the discussions, a tie-up that would have bolstered Disney’s laggard TV business and allowed Fox to focus on sports, news and broadcast television.


The talks were no longer active by Monday afternoon when CNBC first reported them, according to these people. They were very preliminary and broke down over price and other key deal terms, according to one of them.


Assets Disney would have acquired included the FX cable network, Twentieth Century Fox studio and Fox’s 39% stake in U.K. pay-television giant Sky SKYAY 1.05% PLC.

The talks come as media content and distribution companies have been rapidly consolidating over the past several years and consumers embrace new platforms that have established companies fearful for their futures. Acquiring some of Fox’s assets would have given Disney a leg up in its effort to take more content directly to consumers, after worries about cord-cutting reducing subscribers to its key channels, particularly ESPN. For Fox, the deal could have been a bid to slim down to focus on news and sports—content that has traditionally been highly valued by consumers and advertisers.


21st Century Fox Revenue Sources
In the year ended June 30, more than half of the company's revenue came from its cablesegment, which includes Fox News and FX.

(Jo's Note: Please check original link, for revenue information which also includes breakdown figuresTHE WALL STREET JOURNAL
Source: The company
Note: "Other" also includes corporate overhead and eliminations.



The deal would have immediately made Disney the biggest producer of television content, aiding its struggling television business and significantly increasing its exposure to foreign markets in which Fox has a stronger presence. It also would provide additional content for streaming services Disney is planning to launch in the next two years.


Not included in the discussion were Fox’s broadcast-television network, local stations, sports channels, Fox News and Fox Business Network, one of these people said.

Disney views bolstering its television business as a priority. The unit, driven by ESPN and to a lesser extent by the Disney Channel and ABC broadcast network, reported an 11% drop in profit in the nine months ended July 1. The company has been hit hard by cord-cutting and viewership is down at its family-targeted channels.

Disney also has less TV business in developing markets than competitors like Fox, making it more vulnerable to U.S. trends like declining subscriptions to traditional cable and satellite TV packages.

Disney Chief Executive Robert Iger in July announced plans to launch a pair of subscription streaming services to help battle rivals like Netflix Inc. While the purchase of Fox assets under discussion wouldn’t have affected a planned ESPN offering in 2018, they could have bolstered a family entertainment offering planned for 2019 and potentially even give Disney the content to add online offerings aimed at adults.

Disney has already announced it will end a deal in 2019 to sell streaming rights to its movies to Netflix, to preserve them for its own service. That decision will cost Disney more than $300 million, people with knowledge of the current terms said.

Fox’s class A shares closed up 9.9% to $27.45 on news of the talks Monday afternoon, while Disney stock closed up 2% to $100.64.


Fox has bid $15.5 billion to buy the rest of Sky to help expand its global media empire, but the deal has been held up by the U.K. government as it continues to review whether the acquisition would put too much power in the hands of one media company.

Fox Executive Chairman Rupert Murdoch has long sought full control of Sky, in part to further diversity Fox’s revenue outside of North America. He abandoned a previous attempt to buy the broadcaster in 2011, before his company’s split, after a phone-hacking scandal at one of his U.K. papers—now shuttered—triggered widespread political and public outrage.
Mr. Murdoch and his family control about 39% of 21st Century Fox’s class B voting shares. He had spent the past several years setting up his sons to inherit his media empire. In 2013, he split his media empire into News Corp , owner of The Wall Street Journal and other newspapers, and 21st Century Fox, home to much of the entertainment assets.


From the Archives


The Past, Present and Future of Disney TV

Since 1996 Disney has created more than fifty original cable TV shows. Some have been huge successes while others have flopped, but Disney believes its new slate of programs will lift ratings. Image: Disney/Everett Composite: Mark Kelly (Originally published July 4, 2017)

Two years later, Mr. Murdoch stepped aside as chief executive of 21st Century Fox and handed the title to his son James Murdoch. His older son, Lachlan Murdoch, was named executive co-chairman at Fox.


A sale of assets to Disney would mark a significant reduction in the size and scope of 21st Century Fox, but it isn’t the first time the family has contemplated a change in structure for the media company. In 2014, Fox pursued an $89 billion takeover of Time Warner Inc., the owner of CNN, HBO and Warner Bros. But Fox abandoned its pursuit after Time Warner rebuffed its advances and Fox’s stock price declined. The deal with Time Warner would have also combined large movie and television production assets, and Fox’s shares have shown weakness in the more than three years since its bid, declining about 17% through last week.


Time Warner is now trying to close on a merger with AT&T that would combine the programming giant with the nation’s biggest pay-TV distributor. Such a combination has other programmers fearful of losing ways to get their own content to consumers.

This past summer, Discovery Communications Inc. said it was merging with Scripps Media, creating a behemoth that would own many of the nation’s most popular cable networks. Sinclair Broadcast Group . , one of the nation’s biggest owners of local TV stations, is trying to acquire Tribune Media Co. , a deal which would give it a reach of 70% of the country.
Disney in particular has been worried about shifting consumer habits as its key channels, particularly ESPN, have lost subscribers due to cord-cutting. Pay-TV distributors are trying to create smaller bundles of channels to sell to consumers and programmers are worried that they might be left out. By combining, programmers can attempt to use their size as leverage to ensure that their channels continue to be fully distributed.

Fox owns one of the biggest and most successful TV-production studios, Twentieth Century Fox Television, which makes shows not only for its sister Fox broadcast network but also for CBS , NBC and ABC. Fox-owned shows include the NBC hit “This Is Us,” ABC’s “Modern Family” and CBS’s “Life in Pieces.” Along with Time Warner Inc.’s Warner Bros. Television, Twentieth Century Fox Television is one the largest suppliers of content to broadcast and cable networks. While Disney has a large television production business as well, it doesn’t have the volume of hits that Twentieth Century Fox Television has.
Fox’s entertainment cable networks include FX, which has several popular shows including “American Horror Story” and “Fargo.” It also owns the National Geographic Channel, which has been investing heavily in scripted programming although has yet to break through with any big hits.


Fox’s cable channels would have stood out at Disney because they are known for much more edgy and darker fare, and feature adult language and push the envelope in terms of nudity as well. Those channels would have potentially complemented Disney cable networks such as Freeform and Disney Channel, which are aimed largely at families, children and young adults.

Keeping the Fox broadcast network and its local television stations without owning a content machine could complicate the network’s future. The reason Fox was launched some three decades ago was to ensure its TV studio would have a place to sell content.


Write to Ben Fritz at [e-mail], Dana Mattioli at [e-mail] and Joe Flint at [e-mail]

[jo]

Was this another development that fell through ?


www.looper.com/94473/20th-century-fox-scraps-deal-marvel-russo-brothers/

[jo]

Hmmm... I am not sure that this is a good development, if talks are pursued again.

We will likely see a further Disneyfication of American culture.

FOX has a very proud history of filmmaking...but giving the right to do so to a company that focuses on movies that cater to the too-young generations may not be a good development! Also, recent reports that Disney has become more greedy in its corporate pursuits ( i.e., the recent report re the onerous terms that theater exhibitors have to comply with to be able to show STAR WARS/Jedi) is not welcome news either.

I am glad that LOGAN is already in the can. It would not have happened in Disneyworld!

Re my own preference -- this is not the kind of creative atmosphere that I would like to see Hugh's new career turn thrive! I am relieved that he seems to be determined to walk away from his superhero franchise ( mainly because he seems personally convinced that he has already made the best conclusion possible in his Wolverine role, via LOGAN). I even find it a little insulting that many fanboys are saying that all it would take would be "truckloads of money" to get Hugh back as Wolverine. More personally, I would be sorry to see a studio which let him make films like AUSTRALIA ( history/action), LOGAN ( superhero drama) and GREATEST SHOWMAN ( musicals) become one that makes mass-market/juvenile-oriented movies in general.

We'll see...


Jo

[jo]

Deadline.com writes a more insightful analysis from a business viewpoint of what a potential Disney acquisition of FOX might mean --

deadline.com/2017/11/fox-disney-merger-content-is-weapon-of-choice-1202203208/

Fox-Disney Deal Would Redraw Battle Lines: “Content Is The Weapon Of Choice”
by Dawn C. Chmielewski

and Dade Hayes

November 6, 2017 7:20pm


Personalities, egos and dollar signs never can be discounted when sizing up major media business maneuvers, but one motivation above all others led 21st Century Fox and Disney to the negotiating table: the rapidly shifting media landscape.


With streaming services like Netflix luring away cable TV subscribers with increasing speed and threatening traditional business models, distributors such as AT&T and Comcast have gained leverage through consolidation. This new reality seems to have prompted two longtime media rivals, with their distinctly different corporate cultures, to consider combining — though it should be noted that talks apparently have reached an impasse.


In the short term, most Wall Streeters and media observers sees plenty of upside for Disney but murkier prospects for Fox, which reportedly had determined that it lacked sufficient scale to compete vigorously. On the cable TV side, the addition of a prestige content outfit like FX Networks would bolster Disney’s struggling cable business, particularly its traditional cash cow, ESPN, which has shed 13 million subscribers in the past six years. It also positions Disney and Fox for a future in which content is delivered via the Internet.


“Content is the weapon of choice in this over-the-top game,” said Peter Csathy, chairman of CREATV Media. “Crafty Disney can use content offensively and defensively. It can withhold its treasure trove of content and characters … from Netflix, or use some of the biggest brands in the world, the biggest franchises — Star Wars, Pixar, Marvel, now maybe X-men is another one — to its advantage.”


Disney announced this summer that it plans to remove its movies from Netflix to launch a direct-to-consumer streaming service in 2019. Adding Fox’s film library to the mix, with such blockbusters as Avatar, Deadpool, X-Men: The Last Stand and even the Alvin and the Chipmunks and Ice Age animated franchises, would strengthen such a direct-to-consumer offering. Given Disney’s reliance on theme parks, wringing cash out of IP in that arena represents another opportunity that other media conglomerates can’t match.


Fox “offers significantly more IP — especially in older demos — versus the Disney franchises,” wrote RBC Capital Markets analyst Steven Cahall wrote in a note reacting to reports of the talks, which first surfaced on CNBC. “In addition to bringing Marvel’s X-Men back to the rest of the studio, Fox has major franchises including Planet of the Apes, Kingsman and Alien, not to mention plenty of Oscar-worthy films like The Revenant, The Martian and Birdman. This could help fill in the adult interest in DTC beyond Marvel and Star Wars films.”


Speaking of adult audiences, no one has managed to compete better in the prestige, premium-TV trenches than FX. Under the leadership of John Landgraf, the 20-year-old outfit has created a collection of franchises and award-winners. Still, Landgraf has railed against the “shock-and-awe” levels of spending that Netflix and other hugely capitalized rivals bring to the TV game. At his TCA executive session last August, he compared the task of competing with Silicon Valley-funded entities, which now include Apple, Facebook and YouTube along with early movers Netflix and Amazon, to being “shot in the face with money” every day. In this “titanic struggle,” he added, “I want humans to win against the machines.” Teaming up with a fellow major player like Disney could give humans a better shot, in theory.


Other elements of the deal include Fox’s 39% interest in pay-TV giant Sky, though the Murdoch family, whose long, costly pursuit of the remaining portion — still held up by regulators wary of the Fox News owner’s stewardship — might have reached its end. Elsewhere under the corporate tent, it’s unclear what, if anything, a merger of Disney and Fox would mean to their disruptive love-child, Hulu. The media companies share one-third ownership with Comcast. Time Warner owns a 10% stake.


Launched to compete with YouTube, the streaming service has evolved from its origins a decade ago as a TV catch-up service consumed largely via desktop computers. It now is a multi-faceted entity with a live, over-the-top bundled service competing directly with pay-TV and skinny-bundle purveyors and a content giant that showcases high-value library titles and produces its own originals, including Emmy-winning drama The Handmaid’s Tale.

Cahall ballparks the deal’s valuation at $20 billion. He also notes that the remaining assets of Fox themselves could then command an M&A premium, “especially from distributors with regional footprints that can be tied into RSNs and local station activities.”


The portfolio that doesn’t wind up with Disney — assets such as Fox Broadcasting Co., local TV stations, Fox Sports and Fox News — represent a significant amount of remaining value. Lest anyone forget, these are the Murdochs, who, aside from the odd MySpace fail, have a habit of pulling rabbits out of hats.

“Split-to-sell is a time-honored equity market tradition,” Cahall notes.

Plenty more assessments of the deal’s implications and details are likely forthcoming this week. Fox is set to report third-quarter earnings on Wednesday, with Disney following suit on Thursday.

Hopefully, artistic complementation, instead of sweeping in FOX's more mature sense of creativity under the mass-market Disney umbrella, would be one of the acquisition goals!


Jo

[jo]

Speculations continue about a possible Disney acquisition of FOX Studios, among other assets, even if at the moment, talks have been discontinued.

Btw, it was Disney who approached FOX with an offer...but at the moment, Fox/Murdochs are not happy with the terms.


The Wall Street Journal ( which is owned by News Corp of the Murdochs) continues to report on potential developments.


www.wsj.com/articles/disney-held-talks-to-acquire-assets-of-21st-century-fox-1509994869?mod=e2tw

[jo]

Hollywood Reporter speculates on why FOX might consider the Disney offer to buy parts of the Murdoch empire --

www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/michael-wolff-whats-behind-murdochs-sudden-sale-talks-disney-1055458

I have also privately thought about the impact of the arrest of the Saudi prince billionaire ( who is also a major investor in Citibank, if I recall right) on the FOX/News Corp group. Likewise, I have wondered whether the Sky acquisition deal will actually ever push through.

But I have never thought that there is a continuing " struggle" between Lachlan and James Murdoch, at least in terms of how they think the future of their media empire should grow.


At the moment, they say that the Disney offer is not acceptable...

We'll see...


It is sad that part of this corporate/family issues will affect a film studio with such a proud and memorable filmmaking history. If he were alive, I wonder what people like Daryl Zanuck will say

I had some hopes about James Murdoch's role, having recently found out that he was actually different from the corporate-type that his image suggests -- he was more independent minded, has liberal views ( great supporter of climate change), even led an almost-hippie life when he was much younger, etc... He was more open to new challenges...and it seems that Lachlan is the one who simply wants to keep their traditional media role protected.

It seems that in general the Murdoch group never really ran the film studio with artistic values as its primary driver...but c'est la vie!

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/20th_Century_Fox


From an employee's point of view, "mergers and acquisitions" are some of the most feared words in the vocabulary. Corporate vision and corporate culture could be the casualties!


Jo

[jo]

Another recent article on the "fading" star system --

beta.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/la-en-mn-star-power-20171108-story.html


Excerpts --

Does anyone care about stars anymore?

Well, probably if you're looking to win an Academy Award. But wait: The last time a film starring an A-lister won the best picture Oscar was 2013, when Ben Affleck directed himself in "Argo." (And no, Brad Pitt's fleeting performance in 2014's winner, “12 Years a Slave," does not count as a star vehicle.) Since then, we’ve seen “Spotlight” and “Moonlight,” both ensemble films, take home the prize.


OK, so maybe stars matter if you care about box office. But wait: 2017's box office titans really don't include starring roles for A-listers. Sure, there are the fly-by appearances like Robert Downey Jr. in "Spider Man: Homecoming" and Tom Hardy in "Dunkirk" — movies that place in the box-office top 10 so far this year. But otherwise, there's really just one movie starring a recognized A-lister that’s cracked the 2017 list: "Logan," with Hugh Jackman.


Hugh Jackman from the film, "Logan." (Ben Rothstein / Twentieth Century Fox via AP )


Which is somewhat ironic, given that James Mangold, who directed "Logan," could care less about the star/A-list game when he casts his pictures. "Stardom is an asset for business, but it's not an asset for the creative endeavor," he says. "In the past, the business side has made it much easier to get movies with 'big stars.' But that's not as true as it once was."


More ...

[jo]

www.theguardian.com/film/2017/nov/10/harvey-weinstein-mood-in-hollywood-paranoia-who-is-next

'Fear is everywhere': a quiet paranoia haunts post-Weinstein Hollywood

The industry is on edge as allegations of sexual misconduct reach dizzying heights. The question on everyone’s mind is: ‘Who will be next?’


More...

[jo]

The news about the Disney/Fox talks ( which fizzled out over price) seems to have encouraged more potential buyers...but the anti-trust position of the Department of Justice may cast a pall over any potential combinations --

deadline.com/2017/11/att-time-warner-merger-concerns-justice-department-fox-deal-delay-1202211167/

As a growing list of potential buyers explore talks with 21st Century Fox, any deal will hinge on the actions of a powerful player that’s not present at the negotiating table: the Justice Department.

The outcome of the DOJ’s antitrust review of AT&T’s proposed $85.4 billion merger with Time Warner may well determine whether media conglomerates like Comcast or Verizon make a bid for some of Fox’s entertainment assets.


If the Trump Administration moves to block the AT&T-Time Warner combination in court, citing anti-competitive concerns, may well chill interest in Fox’s entertainment assets, say people familiar with the situation.
A regulatory greenlight would signal to media giants to continue their pursuit of Fox’s assets, including the company’s significant holdings in India and the UK. Negotiations could take as much long as six months to result in an agreement.



The level of uncertainty prompted Wells Fargo’s Marci Ryvicker to issue a report saying she flat-out doesn’t believe a Comcast-Fox deal could be completed as long as the Sword of DOJ Damocles hangs over the media business.

“We just don’t believe it. Period,” she wrote, adding the chances of any “real deal” being completed, are “exceedingly low, especially given the regulatory scrutiny over the pending AT&T-Time Warner deal.”

During this tumultuous month, the regulatory philosophy of Makan Delrahim, head of the DOJ’s antitrust division, has become more clear.


In a speech Thursday at the American Bar Association’s Antitrust Fall Forum, the appointee of President Donald Trump did not mention the AT&T deal by name. But Delrahim laid out the DOJ’s current thinking about so-called “behavioral remedies” to ensure competition — essentially imposing a set of conditions that would entangle the department and the courts for years to come and which are “challenging” to enforce.

“Behavioral remedies often require companies to make daily decisions contrary to their profit-maximizing incentives, and they demand ongoing monitoring and enforcement to do that effectively,” Delrahim said. “It is the wolf of regulation dressed in the sheep’s clothing of a behavioral decree. And like most regulation, it can be overly intrusive and unduly burdensome for both businesses and government.”

This approach cleared the way for the Comcast-NBCUniversal deal (which was approved with 150 conditions). Media insiders assumed the same rules would apply with the combination of AT&T and Time Warner, which is also a “vertical” merger where there is little overlap in business operations.


But in an odd turn of events (unless CNN is truly the irritant given Trump’s long history there), the DOJ is arguing for companies to voluntarily make themselves smaller in order to get regulators’ OK.

Delrahim describes this as a structural change that would permanently resolve anti-competitive concerns in a way that requires less government intervention.

“Despite the insignificant size and scale of legacy media companies relative to the tech behemoths they are trying to catch up to through consolidation, the DoJ appears concerned by the vertical integration of distribution and must-have programming,” wrote veteran media analyst Richard Greenfield of BTIG.
The shifting regulatory environment hangs over Fox negotiations.


Reports first surfaced earlier this month of Disney holding talks to purchase Fox’s film and television studios, some of its cable television networks and its holdings in the streaming service Hulu, the British satellite TV provider Sky and Fox’s Star in India.

Those negotiations ended in an impasse over price.


Since Disney walked away from the bargaining table, other media conglomerates quickly formed a queue. Among those expressing interest in Fox’s assets are Comcast and Verizon, two powerful distributors with significant investments in content.

Sony Pictures CEO Tony Vinciquerra also reportedly made an inquiry — not a shocking development, since he, Sony film chief Tom Rothman and Sony Pictures Television head Mike Hopkins all hail from Fox.

A pricy entertainment acquisition would mark an unusual plot twist for the Tokyo-based conglomerate, which only recently marked a come-back after years of financial struggles.

Sony Entertainment swung to a profit during its most recent quarter, thanks to the theatrical success of Spider-Man: Homecoming, though it is still it the process of righting itself following a $1 billion write-down earlier this year.
That would seemingly make a significant investment in the business appear unlikely.

[jo]

Not happening, it looks like --

[jo]

A filmmaker speaks!

cinephiliabeyond.org/inspired-try-things-miracles-happen-someone-takes-chance-conversation-james-mangold/

The entire Mangold interview is reprinted under " LOGAN : Awards Nominations and Wins ".

Very insightful interview on how a dedicated film auteur crafts his cinematic vision!


Jo

[jo]

deadline.com/2017/11/disney-fox-deal-should-shamed-artists-be-stricken-from-history-1202214838/

Bart & Fleming: Sparks Rekindling On Disney-Fox Deal? Should Shamed Artists & Execs Be Stricken From History?

by Mike Fleming Jr

November 28, 2017 3:52pm

Peter Bart and Mike Fleming Jr. worked together for two decades at Daily Variety. In this occasional column, two old friends get together and grind their axes, mostly on the movie business.


FLEMING: I know you want to talk about the legacies of those exposed in these sexual assault and harassment scandals, but I just want to start with a juicy rumor that is fast gaining steam in town today, that Disney is progressing speedily toward that rumored acquisition of Fox. The version I heard has the Murdoch clan keeping possession of sports and news properties, and the rest of TV and the film studio going to Disney. Radio silence right now from both studios, and given how Disney made the Marvel and Lucasfilm deals under the cone of silence, if this happens we’ll probably only know it when it’s announced. It is certainly being talked about today. Not surprisingly, the reaction around town is not enthusiasm, because of the uncertainty that comes with potentially reducing a major studio to content generators under the Disney silo system. But that’s too depressing to contemplate so you go ahead and cheer us up by swinging the discussion back to the sex scandals.

The sentiment seems to be that the Murdochs are selling out the FOX Studio birthright! A great shame!


Jo

[jo]

A word of caution to the Oscar campaigners --

www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/oscars-why-big-idea-campaigns-may-not-connect-voters-1061984?utm_source=twitter

[jo]

Wall Street Journal ( which is part of the News Corp assets) reports on the rekindling of acquisition talks with Disney ( and maybe also Comcast) --

Disney Re-Engages in Talks to Buy 21st Century Fox Assets
Murdochs could decide on whether to pursue a deal by year’s end


Disney first reached out to 21st Century Fox about a possible deal several weeks ago, but the talks cooled after the two sides couldn’t agree on price, among other issues.

By Dana Mattioli and Amol Sharma
Updated Dec. 2, 2017 1:53 p.m. ET

11 COMMENTS

Walt Disney Co. has re-engaged in discussions with 21st Century Fox FOX 1.03% to purchase some of the media giant’s assets, and Comcast Corp. CMCSA 2.37% remains in the mix, with deal talks gaining momentum, according to people familiar with the situation.

The talks center on the Twentieth Century Fox movie and TV studio, international assets such as Fox’s 39% holding in U.K. satellite TV provider Sky SKYAY -0.24% PLC and India’s Star TV, along with some U.S. cable networks. Fox News, the Fox broadcast network and sports network FS1 aren’t expected to be sold in any transaction, the people said.

Rupert Murdoch and his family, who hold 39% of 21st Century Fox’s voting shares, expect to make a decision by year’s end on whether to pursue a transaction, the people said.

Disney first reached out to 21st Century Fox about a possible deal several weeks ago, but the talks cooled after the two sides couldn’t agree on price, among other issues, people familiar with the matter have said.

Once news of those initial talks surfaced, other potential acquirers began emerging. Comcast, Sony Corp.’s entertainment unit, and Verizon Communications Inc., are among firms that have expressed various levels of interest, the people familiar with the situation say. The extent of discussions with Sony and Verizon is unclear. A top Verizon executive last week played down the need for the company to do a big content acquisition.

[jo]

Well, well - what an interesting turn the buzz about the Disney/Fox negotiations for unloading a part of the FOX assets!


Is second son James Murdoch being seriously considered now to replace Bob Iger as Disney CEO? Maybe as part of the deal?

There were reports from Wall Street Journal and the Financial Times, but I think a local Australian paper may have a deeper insight on what is prompting Rupert Murdoch to push through with this new development. Plus it is becoming more difficult to view the full story without having to subscribe to the online editions

www.brisbanetimes.com.au/business/companies/cbd-weds-20171205-p4yxen.html

I think that would be an excellent progression in James Murdoch's career! Given his broad business background and his personal profile, he is both a modern business mind as well as one who is a surprising advocate of certain social issues.

Jo