Disney Company Content Libraries Discussion Thread

[Moe]

Is there no other solution to offer old titles deemed to have no commercial value on a non-profit basis?

1) Upload on YouTube
2) Disney's own FAST
3) Third party FAST (Tubi, Freevee, Vudu Free, Xumo, Pluto)
4) Let releases to public domain earlier
5) Deal with Shout Factory, Mill Creek, Criterion, WB Archive or Sony Home Entertainment to handle with releases to DVD, BD and digital for people to buy.
6) Include numbers of old contents in group when Disney license popular show out to other services like X-Files includes with Dollhouse, Shark and others for free)

@LinusFan303 strongly advocated Disney to make much of obscure contents available on Tubi in the US and @PF9 strongly advocated Criterion to releases on DVD, BD and digital.

I do think Disney want save some of contents for future FAST and they use on rotation basis to ensure that contents don't lose the value or gets old fast.

Disney is very slow to adapt the change with market.

It will take time to wait for FAST services to become widespread and come to this side of the world, but even when it does, I doubt Disney will add pre-dubbed content that has aired in certain parts of the world in the past.

If Hollywood studios see FAST as important and they would help someone to establish the infrastructure to run the FAST in other countries and find an organizations to see if they could handle with dubbing, or find and buy old dubbings back if it is owned by other companies. I don't know much with other countries and that is my guess answer.

Also, why didn't Disney make a global deal for these titles like WBD? For example, why isn't Netflix or Amazon interested in releasing Dark Angel or Legend of the Seeker?

My guess is they aren't interested to lease and as for Dark Angel, it may be not streamable because of no clearance in place (based on unavailable with digital stores). My solution is if Amazon leases LA Law, so it should include with Dark Angel and Legend of the Seeker for free with LA Law and Amazon would haven't issue to add those on service. As for un-streamable due to no clearance, Disney would needs to contract with company to handle with clearance, or hire lawyers to do all works to get clearance. When contents get clearance, so it can be put on streaming services or lease out.

I don't know if Disney is holding on to pre-2001 FFW assets or pre-2019 20th Century assets to license them to 3rd party organizations. However, it seems that it is not certain that everything will be given there either.

Disney is one of most difficult to predict and I don't know about what Disney want contents to be end up.

In summary, my future predictions for how much legacy content streaming platforms will offer are pretty dark, and I don't think it will happen even if streaming becomes profitable.

Honest with you, I'm not too optimistic to see Disney make old contents streamable that can be accessed easily but I'm not giving out my hope and my hope is Disney change their tune to make them streamable in near future.

 

[Goldstar!]

They could give up Fox Entertainment if a situation did occur.

That's a pretty big "if". What would happen to cause Disney to sell off Fox Entertainment?

I mean, with Warner Bros. Discovery licensing their content instead of putting them on Max, other companies may end up doing the same.

The only reason why Warner Discovery is licensing out its content is because they need the money. If WBD wasn't drowning in debt, they'd be all about that exclusivity. And they would've just released Coyote VS Acme as an HBO Max exclusive, which was the original plan.

I also think Disney needs more money to put into expanding and maintaining their parks in the US and France for the better (look at Tokyo Disney Resort and their upcoming Fantasy Springs expansion for Tokyo DisneySea, for example, and that’s thanks to the Oriental Land Company). Disney+ is even starting to cut back on making original content, from the evidence of turning the planned Moana TV series into the theatrical film Moana 2. Reminder also that Disney had a bad 2023 box office.

That's a bit of a reach. Admittedly, 2023 wasn't a great year for Disney, but they're not suffering like that. They still have more money than the mint. Disney owns The Simpsons, X-Men and Archer now. This is something that you're just going to have to accept.

 

[Silverstar]

^^Disney just inked an 8.5 billion dollar (that's "billion" with a B) deal to merge Disney Star India with India's Viacom 18. Sure, Wish and The Marvels underperformed at the box office, but Disney's not going to be selling off their stuff at a yard sale anytime soon. They still have more capital than most small countries and Bob Iger's still going to bed at night with a Bart Simpson doll by his bed, figuratively speaking.

 

[Fone Bone]

^^Disney just inked an 8.5 billion dollar (that's "billion" with a B) deal to merge Disney Star India with India's Viacom 18. Sure, Wish and The Marvels underperformed at the box office, but Disney's not going to be selling off their stuff at a yard sale anytime soon. They still have more capital than most small countries and Bob Iger's still going to bed at night with a Bart Simpson doll by his bed, figuratively speaking.

I'm tired of this argument because it's self-evident. It's draining and pointless.

 

[Moe]

I'm tired of this argument because it's self-evident and we shouldn't even be having it. It's draining and pointless.

Exactly, I know about what you means, and I'm not forward to debate about future of 20th Century again.

I just stated my opinion, that all and I'm not into debate.

 

[Elijah Abrams]

Disney owns The Simpsons, X-Men and Archer now. This is something that you're just going to have to accept.

They can have X-Men, since that is mostly a Marvel property, but I don’t think they should have Simpsons and Archer.

Sure, Wish and The Marvels underperformed at the box office, but Disney's not going to be selling off their stuff at a yard sale anytime soon.

Indiana Jones 5, The Creator, Ant-Man 3, and Haunted Mansion underperformed as well.

 

[JMTV]

They can have X-Men, since that is mostly a Marvel property, but I don’t think they should have Simpsons and Archer.

(Sighs) I don't wanna dogpile on you since I have no dog in this race regarding the whole Disney/Fox thing, but your obsession of wanting Fox being divest from Disney has starting to become really annoying. Whatever you like it or not, 20th Century Fox is owned by Disney, lock, stock, and barrel. You just got a deal with it and move on.

Same thing with The Simpsons and Archer being owned by Disney. It is what is.

Indiana Jones 5, The Creator, Ant-Man 3, and Haunted Mansion underperformed as well.

Okay, but Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 3 was making a lot of money in the box office. What's your point?

 

[Moe]

Indiana Jones 5, The Creator, Ant-Man 3, and Haunted Mansion underperformed as well.

Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny, Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania and The Creator made more money against budget and those loss are recovered quickly with home video sales and streaming. Those aren't worst for Disney.

Now, Disney has to adjust the market to ensure that their films don't face fierce competition from other studios and they have to reduce the numbers of Marvel films per year to prevent the "Marvel fatigue", akin to "Star Wars fatigue" when they released too many Star Wars films in short time.

Same thing with The Simpsons and Archer being owned by Disney. It is what is.

Honest with you, The Simpsons and adult animated shows are one of reason that I didn't cancel the subscription and they helped to make Disney+ more valuable.

Streaming era is great for popular shows but sucks for niche shows.

 

[Goldstar!]

They (Disney) can have X-Men, since that is mostly a Marvel property, but I don’t think they should have Simpsons and Archer

And yet, they do. Facts don't care about your feelings. Like I already said, I don't like that Discovery owns Warner Bros. now, but it's not like you or I can do anything about it, so why go on about it like this? Part of being an adult is being able to accept the things that you can't change. You've made it abundantly clear that you don't like Disney owning Fox Entertainment, and we get it. Message received, but the Mouse House isn't going to sell 20th Century Studios just because you don't want them owning The Simpsons. That's not your call to make. You don't have billions of dollars to purchase an entertainment company. Disney does. And reiterating the same point multiple times doesn't accomplish anything.

Indiana Jones 5, The Creator, Ant-Man 3, and Haunted Mansion underperformed as well.

Yeah, and...? That doesn't mean that Disney is about to go under and that they'll have to sell 20th Century Studios. That's not the case at all. Like @JMTV already mentioned, Guardians of the Galaxy, Vol. 3 was a huge hit. It's going to take more than a few flops to bankrupt the entire studio.

Honestly, I think that @Fone Bone was right. This continuous back-and-forth about Disney and Fox Entertianment is pointless and exhausting. You can concoct all of the fantastic scenarios about Disney selling Fox and/or its properties that you want, but it won't change reality. I don't know how to make that point any clearer, so I'm not going to try.

 

[Elijah Abrams]

I only brought up my wish for a Disney/Fox divestiture because of David Greenbaum, who co-runs Searchlight Pictures, replacing Sean Bailey and being promoted to the newly created title of president of Disney live-action and 20th Century Studios. The last part felt misunderstanding to me, because it felt like to me that 20th was being further integrated into The Walt Disney Studios, but it isn’t the case, because Steve Asbell is also continuing his position as president of 20th Century Studios, which he has had since 2020. I now realize it would be considered unrealistic for a president of Disney live-action and 20th Century Studios to lead a campaign for a Disney/Fox divestiture, since that would be the company CEO's job/decision.

 

[Moe]

I don't like Microsoft own Activision Blizzard but I'm not going to scream at Microsoft to sell Activision Blizzard, and same concept with WB Discovery.

I know that is pointless and waste of time.

 

[GRPHX]

Likewise, I don't like Disney's ownership of Saban Entertainment and Fox Kids animation library, but that doesn't change the fact that Disney owns them. In short, everyone has something they don't like, and unfortunately, this doesn't mean that whatever you don't like will end.

 

[JulianRO]

Likewise, I don't like Disney's ownership of Saban Entertainment and Fox Kids animation library, but that doesn't change the fact that Disney owns them. In short, everyone has something they don't like, and unfortunately, this doesn't mean that whatever you don't like will end.

What saddens me is that Disney doesn't seem to care about the Saban/Fox Kids library. Those series are pretty much locked in their vault, and who knows if they're gonna be ever released.

 

[Pooky]

Whatever one thinks of this subject, discussing it is not against our rules when it is not off-topic. Henceforth any such discussion regarding proposed ideas for Disney sell-offs should be confined to this thread, so if you avoid this thread you should be able to avoid the subject. If you see it brought up off-topic in another thread, let us know, but insulting other members over it is against our rules, so any more such instances will result in warnings.

 

[GRPHX]

So I'm changing the subject. I think they should sell the entire Hotstar and STAR companies and their 50% stake in A&E Networks, except for the STAR brand that Disney uses for its international TV channels.With that, let them pay off the debt and get the remaining %20 of ESPN.

 

[Moe]

So I'm changing the subject. I think they should sell the entire Hotstar and STAR companies and their 50% stake in A&E Networks, except for the STAR brand that Disney uses for its international TV channels.With that, let them pay off the debt and get the remaining %20 of ESPN.

I'm all for Disney to sell all of 50% of A&E Networks and Disney haven't anything to contribute A&E Networks.

I missed A&E in old day when they aired drama shows and today, they are 100% reality channel. I got enough of reality shows and absolutely to see channels to air old drama shows, so MeTV, MeTV+, H&I, Start TV, Charge!, Get (GetTV) and Comet are prime example. Cozi used to be but not much anymore.

and of course, sport is big moneymaking, Disney should take 100% of ESPN. As for me, I'm not sport fan, however, I only watch special games like Super Bowl, World Series, March Madness and College Football Playoff.

 

[Francisque]

I have a feeling of deja-deja-deja-deja vu with this thread

 

[Moe]

I learned that Disney Channel in 1984 was priced at between $7.95 to $12.95, so they are more expensive than Disney+ today.

CABLE TV NOTES; THE DISNEY CHANNEL HAS AN EXPENSIVE FIRST YEAR (Published 1984)

Steve Knoll frequently reports on the cable television scene. Walt Disney Productions' high-risk venture into Cableland has begun its second year, as an audience now totaling 916,000 subscribers pays between $7.95 to $12.95 a month to receive the service. Despite a loss of $48.3 million in...

www.nytimes.com

Want go back to 1980s? The portal is open for you.

 

[Francisque]

I learned that Disney Channel in 1984 was priced at between $7.95 to $12.95, so they are more expensive than Disney+ today.

CABLE TV NOTES; THE DISNEY CHANNEL HAS AN EXPENSIVE FIRST YEAR (Published 1984)

Steve Knoll frequently reports on the cable television scene. Walt Disney Productions' high-risk venture into Cableland has begun its second year, as an audience now totaling 916,000 subscribers pays between $7.95 to $12.95 a month to receive the service. Despite a loss of $48.3 million in...

www.nytimes.com

Want go back to 1980s? The portal is open for you.

The prices even for cable TV are terrible

I don't want price rises, but you get MUCH more for your bucket now than in , let's say, 2000.

Disney's used to be premium channels up here in Europe well until 2006, or bundled with other Movies channels
And the prices were ridiculous relative to now

 

[Moe]

The prices even for cable TV are terrible

Yeah, there were many price hikes for cable TV in 1980s that led to passage of 1992 Cable Act to slow the price hike down, but FCC wasn't aggressive and ultimately, 1996 Telecommunications Act repealed a section of 1992 Cable Act to end the regulation on price, but it didn't take in effect until 1999. FCC said cable TV expansion with new channels made a decision on pricing more harder and FCC concerned about possible court challenges if cable companies aren't happy, so they tried to be mild to make cable companies and subscribers happy.

I don't want price rises, but you get MUCH more for your bucket now than in , let's say, 2000.

Yeah, that's true and Disney Channel schedule in 1983-1984 may looks like full variety but they aired same contents again and again in different days. With Disney+, you have full access to 1,400 films and nearly 600 shows.

I have enough with price hikes and hopefully major hikes would be last, so it become slow down, especially for no ads plan.

Disney's used to be premium channels up here in Europe well until 2006, or bundled with other Movies channels
And the prices were ridiculous relative to now

Interesting, in the US, 1983 to 1997, however numbers of major cable companies like Time Warner and Comcast continued to sell Disney Channel at premium price until 2003. Some cable companies start to offer Disney Channel for free with basic cable subscription in 1990. My dad told me that Disney Channel in 1999 was $7 per month and have to use rented descrambler box to access. Some cable companies offer Disney Channel for free or heavy discounted if you subscribe HBO, Cinemax, Showtime at same time.