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...?

Will Bob Iger Step Down?

This is Bob Iger, the current CEO of the Walt Disney Company:

Hi, Bob!

Iger has been the CEO of Disney since 2005, when Roy E. Disney (Walt's nephew) successfully ousted Michael Eisner. Now, I have many thoughts on Eisner, and very few of them are positive. I do acknowledge that Eisner becoming CEO in 1984 was a movie that absolutely saved the company from bankruptcy: he helped revitalize the animation department and brokered some shrew financial deals. BUT -- and this is a huge but -- all magic comes with a price, and some of the changes Eisner implemented are just distasteful to me. For some reason, the FastPass system is one of them. I know it seems ubiquitous now, but if Disney hadn't led the way, would some version of it be in every theme park? And, yes. I take full advantage of it now, and book my FastPasses and have few qualms about skipping the line -- especially on Thunder Mountain, because that line is SO BORING to wait in. But one of the things that separates Disney from, well, everyone, is that their rides are so intricately tied into the stories they tell. Some would call this opportunistic, some would praise the synergy of Disney's marketing, and that's fine. But the point is that when you ride a Disney ride, you're not just riding a coaster -- you're riding a coaster with a story that you can immerse yourself in. And part of the joy of visiting a Disney park is experiencing that story with your family -- and that story is often told while you're waiting in line, with your family. Skip the line and you skip the story and the bonding time with your loved ones. And that is a very un-Disney thing. 😢

But I digress. Like, a lot.

The point is that there are reports that Iger has said he's stepping down from the CEO role -- and means it. Now, he's said 2019 is his end date, so who knows? A lot can change by then.

But. If he does step down...well, I think we have a right to be hesitant and concerned about what this means for Disney. While you could say that Iger has done similar things as Eisner -- after all, like Eisner, he's taken the company to a new financial level by acquiring both Marvel and LucasFilm and, also like Eisner, he's overseen the opening of an international park (Eisner had Disneyland Paris, Iger had Shanghai Disney)  -- he's done so in a manner that somehow seems true to Walt's vision and "feel" for the company. And the fact that he was approved by Walt's nephew carries a great deal of weight for me. (The whole drama is fascinating to me -- I highly recommend reading up on it, or reading Roy E. Disney's resignation letter to Eisner.)

Regardless...I'll be curious to see who's tapped for his replacement...

R. I. P. Tower of Terror -- You Can't Compete With The Power of Cross-Promotion

One of my favorite memories of our honeymoon at Disneyland was when my husband and I rode the Tower of Terror. It's my favorite ride in all of Orlando (I think it's my husband's second favorite? "Escape From Gringotts" at Diagon Alley in Universal might be his new top pick...) and there was no way we weren't going to ride it.

Like many rides in Disneyland, Tower of Terror is just different enough to keep you on your toes. The first time we rode it, we didn't know that of course -- we assumed the ride itself would be just the same. NOPE.

We were sitting in the front row, just hanging out, when the doors open.
In Orlando, you move forward -- to the front of the ride and it's all dark with sparkly stars. THEN the drops start.
In Anaheim...everyone behind and around us was fidgeting and giggling and we were all, "Um, guys? Chill. We've still got a few seconds here."
And then we dropped.
And we screamed.
And then we laughed because OF COURSE they knew better than we did, but it was almost better that way because it was a new ride experience for us and that was awesome.

Great anecdote, Lisa -- but what does this trip down memory lane have to do with anything? 

ComicCon was this weekend -- a BFD in the world of pop-culture for all the trailers that drop, panels that are convened, and exclusive information that's released. Much of the Disney related news (a new Doctor Strange trailer, Brie Larson as Captain Marvel, Once Upon A Time's foray in Agrabah) isn't really relevant to my thoughts here (maybe the OUaT news). What is of interest, though, is this news about Disneyland Park:

via D23

The iconic Hollywood Tower Hotel -- a.k.a. the Tower of Terror ride -- isn't going to be the Hollywood Tower Hotel anymore.

Nope. Instead, it's going to be "Guardians of the Glaxy Mission: Breakout!" or some such nonsense.

Look. I get it. Guardians of the Galaxy was a huge success for Disney -- given the fact that it starred a talking raccoon and a tree -- proving that films outside of The Avengers franchise were worth the investment. I also get that they're looking at this as part of a new expansion to California Adventure, like Marvel-land or whatever. Which...cool. Awesome. You want to expand, Disney Imagineers? I believe you're up to the challenge. (My map-obsessed-husband says you have the space to expand, so I'll believe him.)

But, to me, that is simply not enough to warrant taking a successful attraction and imposing a new narrative on an existing ride track (I assume) just to benefit from some cross-promotion (Guardians 2 will hit theaters in May of 2017, after all) and merchandizing (but will you be able to buy any Gamora merchandise?)
Maybe if the ride/attraction was struggling, it'd be a different story.
Maybe if it was a temporary overlay, like the Star Wars' themed HyperSpace Mountain at Disneyland, it'd be a different story.

As one of my friends pointed out on Facebook:

"What bothers me is that they are stripping away what makes going to the parks a unique and different experience than the movies. As a kid I wanted to go to Disney because it was something I couldn't get from the movies or tv network. They had rides and attractions that you could only get there. Tower of Terror was one of those rides I remember opening and being excited because I had to go there to experience it. I find some of the new rides like The Little Mermaid, Nemo, and probably Frozen annoying because it's just the movie. I've seen your films, give me something different."

Eloquently, and succinctly put. It's exactly what bothered me about replacing Maelstrom with the Frozen ride -- especially since the ride itself doesn't wow me. It's not the movie, but it's nothing overwhelmingly unique and special either. Like my friend, I'm disappointed with Nemo whenever I ride it (that's it? really? the line to the ride is more engaging) and I think I only enjoy the Little Mermaid ride so much because I love the music and the movie. While it's true that some of the "classic," older rides at the Disney Parks are basically "just the movie," there's still something unique about them -- or maybe that's the nostalgia talking. Take "Peter Pan's Flight" for instance: that basically just recaps the highlights of the film...but you're on board a "flying" boat. 

But when a ride outlives its attraction-potential, it simply gets rebooted. (Why are we all about the reboots these days?!) "Mr. Toad's Wild Ride" became "Winnie The Pooh." "Twenty Thousand Leagues Under The Sea" became "Finding Nemo" at Disneyland and New Fantasyland in the Magic Kindgom. Maelstrom became the Frozen ride. I can't attest to the first two--but Maelstrom was still popular (or, at least, popular enough for EPCOT; not nearly as popular as Frozen is, that's for sure). And so was Tower of Terror. 

We're already planning our next (tentative) trip to Disneyland -- it might be before, but we definitely want to go for the 75th Anniversary: our daughter will be 14 then and it hurts my heart to think that we'll ride this Guardians ride and explain that, once upon a time, it was the Tower of Terror ride which she knows and (hopefully!) loves in Orlando. 

Please don't take away my Tower of Terror in MGM, Disney. I'm not sure even my loyalty will stretch that far. 

Theme Park Travels: Nickel and Dimed, Part II

Last week, I composed a fairly long post about the differences (that I saw) between Busch Gardens Williamsburg and Disney parks. It was inspired, as I mentioned last week, by a comment my husband made about feeling "nickel and dimed" at Busch Gardens -- a feeling we don't usually get at Disney parks.

Disney, and I'm not sure if it's completely fair or not, gets a bad rap for how much it costs to visit the parks. All you have to do is a quick Google search:

This is in response, I think, to some new changes being made at the parks -- changes that I haven't experienced firsthand, since our last trip was in the fall of 2015. An article from WDW Info (the first link on the Google results page) seems to have sparked a lot of the discussion, and it's an interesting take....again, I haven't experienced them firsthand, so my "data" might be a little outdated.

But, let's break down my most recent trip to Busch Gardens. (If I had thought ahead, I would have taken more photos as "evidence" -- live and learn. Next time.)

Disney Donates $1M For Orlando Victims

Big news tonight: Disney is donating $1 million to the OneOrlando Fund "to assist those affected by the tragic events in Orlando." 

In addition to their donation, Disney has announced that they'll match, dollar-for-dollar, every (eligible) donation made by their employees. They're also providing free accommodation for the families and friends of the victims as well as opening several blood donation centers across the properties.

My $0.02:
I linked to the official announcement from Disney on their blog -- better to get information from the original source -- but I originally read the news from Entertainment Weekly via Facebook. And I'm shocked by all the people who are trolling Disney saying they're not doing enough. (Although, maybe I shouldn't be surprised. There's also a comment about how Disney bans people with tattoos from entering their parks which...no. Just no. Yes, cast members have to cover their tattoos while working, but that's another matter entirely.)
And, to be fair, there are a lot of people defending the donation -- and I agree with them. Disney didn't have to do anything -- although, given their presence in Orlando, it would have been a major PR disaster if they hadn't. But again--they're a business. They don't have to make a donation. And as for the amount? Those saying that "a million dollars" isn't enough...I don't think any amount would be.

I just wish this conversation didn't have to happen at all.

Not So Fast, Netflix Users

So, one of the big pieces of news this week was that Disney and Netflix were teaming up.

That's right--soon (well, soonish -- in September), Netflix subscribers would be able to access every single Disney movie exclusively via the streaming service -- including Marvel and LucasFilm movies.

But it's Disney, so there's a catch.

That catch comes in the form of the somewhat-annoying-but-undeniably-ingenius Disney Vault: that elusive, mysterious place where all Disney movies hide at some point in their lives -- like a semi-permanent retirement community for Disney's money-makers. Every so often, usually around a "big anniversary," a film will come out of the Disney Vault, usually digitally remastered or with some exclusive content or in some new format (DVD! Blu-Ray!), and always only for a limited time.

Like, I said. Merchandising gold. You've taken a ubiquitous product and made it special and exclusive and only available for a short period of time.

Netflix, however, would change all that: after all, if you subscribed to Netflix and you could watch the movies any time you wanted, why would you buy the special edition DVDs?

Chances are, you probably wouldn't.

So, despite the Internet's typical over-reaction, you won't be able to watch every Disney movie: some of the older movies will still be available (probably to garner interest in older, less popular films) and the newest films will be available as well. I would imagine that watching Zootopia or Finding Dory on Netflix might be akin to watching it on HBO or Starz or whatever TV channel Disney used to have the agreement with.