Disney Buys 21st Century Fox -- What Does It Mean?

Honestly, I don't know.

I was an English/Bio double major in college so business deals and economics lie far outside my wheelhouse. (I'd probably recommend the New York Times article on it, or even this piece from CNN Money if you want more business-y specifics.)

What I'm concerned with is what this means for Disney's brand.

After all, Disney has built an empire on being a wholesome, family-friendly, "safe" brand -- which critics take particular issue with, given the company's capitalist and consumer-driven corporate ethos. 

Me? I tend to view the creative team and the businessmen as largely separate. That is, I think (or, I'd like to think) that the people directly involved with the story are concerned with just that: concerned with the story. I don't think Jennifer Lee sits down with her creative team and says, "Hmm. We've got this movie about two sisters -- how can we add something that Corporate can market and merchandize the hell out of?" 

Maybe that's naive. I don't know. After all, the Porgs from The Last Jedi seem like someone high up at LucasFilm said, "Make something cute like an Ewok that we can market and merchandize the hell out of." And they did. (Although--when Frozen did come out, there was that whole lack-of-merchandise thing so...maybe not?) 

But I digress. 

My point is: Disney is essentially synonymous with family-friendly and there's a lot about 21st Century Fox that...well...isn't "very Disney," as we say in my house. 

Fox is no stranger to either animation or superheroes, after all: on the TV side, they've got staples like The Simpsons and Family Guy, which, while they may offer on-point social commentary, their humor is a little "adult" for Disney's brand. On the film side, they've got some of the other Marvel properties like X-men and Deadpool -- the latter of which is definitely off-brand. But if the logic behind Disney's acquisition of Marvel (and, I think, of LucasFilm) was to expand their consumer base by acquiring things that appealed to boys (they needed something to compete with the Princess franchise) well...acquiring some off-brand media could potentially expand that consumer base. 

I get why people are worried that being underneath the Disney umbrella will mean significant changes to, or even the end of, off-brand media, but...I just can't see that happening. After all, Touchstone released Pretty Woman under the Disney umbrella, and that worked out pretty well. The Disney logo didn't pop up on the screen before the film, so it's not like Disney was directly associated with it -- they just reaped the profits.

And, that, I think, is the bigger concern. As Alex McLevy points out in this article at The A.V. Club:

"In the long run, all this merger does is contribute to an increasingly homogenized and calcified corporate dominance of the entertainment industry, with fewer and fewer media companies able to challenge the major studios. And in particular, it will make Disney arguably the most powerful studio that has ever existed. The company will exert even more outsized control than it currently does, muscling in on any turf where it can wrench an extra dollar away from someone who deserves it more."

Yikes. This is where I wish I had a little business/econ knowledge to fully understand the ramifications of this. I mean, I get the basic gist of this, as someone who studies and consumes media, but not the full implications. (Any Duke Econ professors out there want to team up and create a FOCUS cluster???)

But just check out this info-graphic, using information from 2011:

This tidbit is also troubling to me as well:

"Also, it will strip the Fox broadcast network from the studio that produces most of its properties[...]that could mean the death knell for Fox television as we know it. Deadline notes Disney would likely keep brand-affiliated shows like The Gifted and beloved institutions like Simpsonsand Family Guy, but beyond that, “observers do not see Fox continuing as a network focused on scripted programming.” Without control of the studio that provides most of its content, the assumption is that Fox will instead focus more on “sports programming, news magazines, and possibly reality shows” to fill its primetime lineup."

As someone who watches an embarrassing amount of television (my DVR is pretty  much always 90% full -- although I do have a lot of Sesame Street saved these days), that hurts my heart. FOX and ABC are probably my two favorite major networks -- mainly because FOX usually picks up the shows that are more fun and different that other networks steer clear of. (Don't get me started on CBS -- while they have The Big Bang Theory, which I will forever love, their line-up is pretty much shows about white dudes. Hi, it's 2017.) Some of my favorite shows are on FOX: Lucifer, Empire, Brooklyn Nine-Nine...and they picked up Glee and Scream Queens. The idea that "scripted programming" could be sacrificed for more sports (you already have ESPN, Disney!!!) and -- *shudder* -- reality shows, makes me want to cry.

I guess we'll have to wait and see...?