
Disney to Acquire Twenty-First Century Fox - mxfh
https://thewaltdisneycompany.com/walt-disney-company-acquire-twenty-first-century-fox-inc-spinoff-certain-businesses-52-4-billion-stock/
======
jakozaur
Sane antitrust regulations should kill this deal.

It is bad for everybody other than shareholders of those two companies. In
particular bad for customers, other companies and employees:
[https://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-
economics/2172555...](https://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-
economics/21725552-new-research-suggests-too-little-competition-deters-
investment-americas)

[https://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21695385-profits-
are...](https://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21695385-profits-are-too-high-
america-needs-giant-dose-competition-too-much-good-thing)

~~~
JumpCrisscross
It's not so black and white. Stratchery posits consolidation may _promote_
competition at the distribution layer, where Netflix presently stands to
dominate:

"To that end, might it be better for consumers, not-so-much today but ten
years from now, if Disney were fully empowered to compete with Netflix? What
is preferable? A dominant streaming company and a collection of content
companies trying to escape the commoditization trap, or two dominant streaming
companies that can at least try to hold each other accountable?" [1]

An analog might be found in the T-Mobile/Sprint merger [2]. It is not obvious
whether their consolidation would have reduced competition, by turning two
options into one, or increased it, by creating a stronger number three to AT&T
and Verizon.

[1] [https://stratechery.com/2017/disney-and-
fox/](https://stratechery.com/2017/disney-and-fox/)

[2] [http://money.cnn.com/2017/11/04/news/companies/sprint-t-
mobi...](http://money.cnn.com/2017/11/04/news/companies/sprint-t-mobile-
merger-deal/index.html)

~~~
aqme28
Is Netflix approaching monopoly?

If anything I've seen a ton of competition coming up from the likes of Amazon,
HBO, and a billion smaller services.

~~~
adamlett
Netflix is on the trajectory to becoming a monopoly, yes. HBO is hamstrung by
its lucrative cable tv deals in the US, which prevents it from competing
effectively with Netflix in the streaming market. They will keep making money
hand over fist from cable tv until suddenly they don’t. If Netflix is Google,
HBO is Yahoo. Amazon in this analogy, of course would be Bing. At a glance
they seem to have what is required to compete with Netflix: Deep pockets and
technological competence. But to compete in this market is for Netflix a
matter of life or death, whereas for Amazon, it’s a side show. As for the
multitude of smaller competitors, they are all the search engines we’ve
forgotten the names of or never heard of to begin with.

~~~
pkill17
If HBO is hamstrung by lucrative deals, then it stands to think that HBO's own
deal making has prevented them from usurping Netflix. To my knowledge, I
haven't heard of Netflix having overtly anti-competitive behavior but I'm all
ears for examples. It seems as though HBO is capable of competing, but they
have to make a risky play and get out from their cable TV bubble to do so,
which is no fault of Netflix.

If anything, this shows that the monolithic telecoms that have large stakes in
these cable TV brands are facilitating monopolies elsewhere because likely
competitors are locked into their current markets.

EDIT: to be clear, HBO's unsuccessful attempt to be level with Netflix in the
streaming arena is more "don't want to" and not "can't". I wouldn't call a
lack of wanting to be monopolistic. If HBO suddenly turned around and wanted
to compete directly with Netflix and got boxed out by Netflix in some way,
i.e. Netflix striking deals with Level 3 or similar providers to prevent HBO
from getting equal treatment, then there's a strong case for them being
labeled a monopoly.

~~~
adamlett
_To my knowledge, I haven 't heard of Netflix having overtly anti-competitive
behavior but I'm all ears for examples._

I’ not aware of any either, but one does not have to engage in anti-
competitive behavior to become or be a monopoly.

 _If anything, this shows that the monolithic telecoms that have large stakes
in these cable TV brands are facilitating monopolies elsewhere because likely
competitors are locked into their current markets_

Yes, that’s right. But like HBO, they are trapped by their business model.

------
werdnapk
So along with Disney pulling all their titles from Netflix for their own
streaming service, I guess the FX content will be next to go from Netflix.

~~~
reubeniv
Oh it's crazy how much stuff Disney can pull off Netflix, I don't know if they
will, because it's in their interest to have some stuff accessible over more
than one place, but they own ABC (Lost, Castle, Firefly, etc), ESPN, Marvel,
LucasArts, now Fox and their assets, not to mention they distribute on behalf
of many publishers (Dreamworks for example), they would probably clear more
than half of Netflix's content if they pulled everything.

~~~
cableshaft
Almost seems like Netflix knew what they were doing when they started funding
a bunch of original content. I remember when people thought they were being
silly.

~~~
bolasanibk
"The goal is to become HBO faster than HBO can become us." \- 2013, Ted
Sarandos, Chief Content Officer, Netflix

[https://gizmodo.com/5980103/netflix-the-goal-is-to-become-
hb...](https://gizmodo.com/5980103/netflix-the-goal-is-to-become-hbo-faster-
than-hbo-can-become-us)

Edit: He just got the company wrong.

~~~
pchristensen
Kind of like how Google made Android free to head off Microsoft, not realizing
that Apple would be their mobile competition.

~~~
aikinai
Google did make Android free to head off Microsoft, but it was already very
clear Apple was the primary competition. They were trying to take Microsoft’s
place in the new Duopoly.

~~~
mulletbum
From my understanding Android's launch was delayed because they didn't know
how amazing the first iPhone was before its release. That seems to me they
were taking it seriously as they were competing with Blackberry at the time if
I am correct.

~~~
tabs_masterrace
The big 3 were BlackBerry, Windows Mobile & Symbian (Nokia)

Android was built a lot like a BlackBerry/Window Mobile competitor in its
early stages. Nobody knew Apple was making a phone, there were heavy rumors of
course, but people weren't expecting the impact it would have.

Google obviously had to know something about it, as they provided maps apis
for the first iPhone. But Apple probably kept as much secret as they could.

But none of them were really prepared for iOS's leap in touchscreen UIs.
Android was the fastest to adopt, took about 2-3 years still though.
BlackBerry & Windows Mobile waited to late for a reboot and Symbian just died
silently.

~~~
danielbln
> Android was the fastest to adopt, took about 2-3 years still though

Is that true though? The first iPhone released in June 2007, the first Android
phone (already with proper touch interfaces) came out a year leater, in
September 2008.

~~~
tabs_masterrace
Yes that is correct, the G1 came out already a year later. But it was still
very clearly inferior to the iPhone, the UI was slow, things like scrolling
lists was laggy and unresponsive, and no multi-touch gestures like pinch-to-
zoom for maps/photos/webbrowser. IMHO Android really started to catch up
around the time Nexus S and then Galaxy Nexus came out.

------
jacksmith21006
Predicted by Matt Groening

[https://goo.gl/images/pPPy6o](https://goo.gl/images/pPPy6o)

------
nottorp
So what are the next movie franchises to get Disney-ized, like they did to
Star Wars? All the super hero stuff, I get, but that's not the only thing that
21st Century makes is it?

~~~
santaclaus
> So what are the next movie franchises to get Disney-ized, like they did to
> Star Wars?

The Simpsons Cinematic Universe

~~~
Nition
Starting with origin story films for each character.

~~~
berbec
A self-contained spinoff "Shelbyville One"

------
freeflight
I, for one, welcome our new mouse-eared overlords. /s

At this rate, I wouldn't be too surprised if Disney ends up buying WB and a
rather awkward Marvel/DC crossover is gonna happen on the big screen.

------
muterad_murilax
So, will the Fox fanfare return to all Star Wars films, past and present, from
now on?

~~~
upvotinglurker
Serious question: why do people want this so badly? Just nostalgia? (Too young
to have see the OT movies in theaters, so I don't have that)

For me, sticking the cheesy fox logo and fanfare at the beginning of the
movies would make them worse, not better.

~~~
rjohnk
Another interesting tidbit:

John Williams put the opening theme to star wars in the same key as the
Fanfare (b-flat major)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/20th_Century_Fox#Logo](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/20th_Century_Fox#Logo)

~~~
jedberg
He wrote the fanfare too (the one that comes before Star Wars, which was an
adaptation of the original).

------
scarface74
The new thing that worries me about the deal is what might happen to Hulu? Now
Disney owns 66% and Comcast owns 33%. Will Comcast take its content off of
Hulu once the consent decree expires?

------
matt_s
Maybe there will be a consolidation and some crappy repetitive movies will go
away? I think these businesses are overvalued. What happens when consumers get
sick of the super hero genre?

EDIT: for whoever down-voted - that wasn't a sarcastic question. Honest
question of what happens when the main products lose popularity? If there is a
downturn in interest in that, will they get their $50B back?

~~~
indubitable
An interesting datum is that movie ticket sales are actually down, _big time_.
[1] Movies hit their peak, in tickets sold, way back in 2002. We're down 26%
since then. Factor in population increases which should have resulted in a
roughly proportional increase in ticket sales and it's shocking how bad movies
are doing. But record breaking sales...? That's gross receipts or
_tickets_sold x cost_per_ticket_. Ticket sales are dropping fast, but the
price per ticket is increasing even faster. Some masterful grasp of supply and
demand there...

Movie companies seem to be in completely denial about the change in quality
being the source of their problems. This goes to explain many otherwise
bizarre behaviors such as the cinemas absolute obsession with piracy even
though most studies show it has at worst a modest effect. That's actually
perhaps the thing I find most ridiculous about mega corporations. There seems
to be this complete lack of self accountability. When reception or sales are
poor they will blame absolutely everything under the sun, except their own
decisions.

It's like how in the video game industry there was this belief that game
review ratings had a _causal_ relationship to increased sales. So the games
industry completely gamed ratings and the correlation all but entirely
disappeared. Go figure, games actually being good was the confounding
variable. Who could have guessed?

[1] - [https://www.the-numbers.com/market/](https://www.the-
numbers.com/market/)

~~~
doomlaser
> Movie companies seem to be in completely denial about the change in quality
> being the source of their problems

Don't you think on demand internet distribution is the true source of the
problem? Record sales were at their peak in 2002 too.

[https://kyigt1bcans3ofli94di0kch-wpengine.netdna-
ssl.com/wp-...](https://kyigt1bcans3ofli94di0kch-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-
content/blogs.dir/9/files/2014/02/dollars-inflation-edited.jpg)

~~~
indubitable
Streaming services like Netflix didn't even exist, as streaming services,
until sometime around 2007. And prior to that the vast majority of people
would not have had the hardware/connection to be able to stream effectively in
any case. Movies had already long since been in decline. Similarly, the time
line is also another bit of evidence that piracy is also not the problem.

------
ra1n85
My knee jerk reaction here was "ugh, more consolidation of the media by US
mega corporations." But then I noted that Fox is owned by News Corp, which
owns the Wall Street Journal and New York Post.

~~~
coldcode
Fox continues to own News and Sports. However rumors are that Murdoch may also
be shopping other parts of what remains. Disney gets Movies including Avatar
and XMen, etc, 300 other channels, production studios, controlling stake in
Hulu and for some bizarre historical reason, now own the rights to Star Wars
IV, A New Hope.

~~~
pinebox
> and for some bizarre historical reason, now own the rights to Star Wars IV,
> A New Hope

These were distribution rights, some of which were going to expire in 2020
anyway.[1] So now we may finally get some official unspecialized Star Wars.

[1]: [http://www.slashfilm.com/20th-century-fox-still-owns-
rights-...](http://www.slashfilm.com/20th-century-fox-still-owns-rights-to-
first-six-star-wars-films-making-original-box-set-difficult/)

~~~
basch
no, Fox OWNED A New Hope, and it says so in the article you posted

------
jccalhoun
I'm kind of torn on whether this is the same as other media mergers like
Comcast-Universal or the upcoming Sinclair-Tribune mergers. I think mergers of
news and broadcast outlets are generally bad but the bulk of what Disney is
buying is intellectual property. Can owning tons of trademarks and copyrights
ever be considered a monopoly? I am uncomfortable with one company owning
Disney, Pixar, Marvel, Star Wars, Aliens, Predator, and all the other things.
But if they make crappy movies then people will just watch something else.

~~~
Spivak
Media properties are natural monopolies thanks to copyright anyway so, sans
quality, it really doesn't matter who owns them.

On the other hand it's definitely possible to have a monopoly on distribution
but good luck arguing that it's possible to have a monopoly on art.

------
paulus_magnus2
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligopsony](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligopsony)

In U.S. publishing, five publishers known as the Big Five account for about
two-thirds of books published.[1] ...

Thus authors have fewer truly independent outlets for their work. This
simultaneously depresses advances paid to authors and creates pressure for
authors to cater to the tastes of the publishers in order to ensure
publication, reducing viewpoint diversity.

------
systems
So now we can finally get X-Men characters in MVCI (Marvel vs Capcom Infinite)

~~~
glitchc
Wolverine (and others) have been around since the very first MvC. Heck, the
direct precursor to MVC was X-Men vs. Street Fighter.

------
longerthoughts
I have a hard time believing this will be approved. Given how much regulatory
scrutiny the AT&T/Time Warner merger is under as a vertical merger, it would
be wildly inconsistent to then approve a horizontal merger of this size, even
if the AT&T/Time Warner merger ultimately goes through.

------
riffic
Awesome, two large media companies becoming one giant media company. This
should concern everyone.

------
randomness123
The deal might be quite good for my country. Fox operates as Star Channels in
India. They are major entertainment and sports provider. They also have a
streaming service 'Hotstar'. Hopefully will see more content on the streaming
service.

------
jsmthrowaway
Wow, Disney didn’t ask them to divest FX, which means they’re knowingly
acquiring _It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia_ among other content they’d
normally not find palatable. They even call out that they’re bringing in _The
Americans_ and _Deadpool_. That’s kind of strange for Disney, given that
historically they’re careful about what they’re associated with. I really hope
they leave their new portfolio alone, but that’s not their MO with content
that they find controversial.

~~~
empath75
You know Disney released Pulp Fiction and Scream right?

~~~
jsmthrowaway
I do, yes. Disney took incredible heat and a number of shareholders bailed as
a result of Miramax releasing _Pulp Fiction_ , and Weinstein had to fight for
it, if I recall my film history. Disney also refused to allow Miramax to
release _Dogma_ , which is history that is guiding my surprise. That studio is
part of the reason they started being more careful, and they finally divested
Miramax in 2010.

It’ll be interesting to see how they handle their portfolio going forward.

~~~
upvotinglurker
1999 (Dogma), not to mention 1994 (Pulp Fiction), was a long time ago, and
things do change. Since then I remember Disney being one of the first big
companies to get in the national news for offering same-sex partner benefits;
they didn't seem to care how many people that offended.

------
PatientTrader
Hopefully this deal is killed. Its really bad for consumers, content creators,
and actors. Monopoly on too much media all under one roof is bad all around...

~~~
bighi
Monopoly in _any_ market is bad.

------
40acres
Generally what does huge mergers in industry mean for disruption (in the more
traditional Clay Christensen model). For example, if the #1 and #4 player in a
specific industry does that mean there is more space for an upstart to grow
since #4 has left the party? Or does the new #1 suck up all the air and put
such a choke hold on industry that new players cannot flourish?

~~~
pchristensen
(Christensen model) Disruption is about business models, not competition. New
technologies that help existing companies improve their products are
"sustaining innovations" (e.g. 2.5" hard drives let laptop companies make
smaller, better laptops). But if they don't help existing companies and allow
the development of a "worse" alternative, it's a disruptive innovation (e.g.
SSD drives were too expensive and low capacity for laptops, but they were
perfect for iPods and smartphones, which have now surpassed laptops in sales,
use, etc).

------
toblender
Great! Now they can fit even more superheroes into one movie...

------
bobcallme
It's a media-opoly!
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nh6Hf5_ZYPI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nh6Hf5_ZYPI)

------
Tiktaalik
I hope everyone likes the Fantastic Four, because we're probably going to get
a few years of Fantastic Four Marvel Cinematic Universe movies out of this
deal.

~~~
frooxie
I really like the original Lee/Kirby comics (and Byrne's run in a similar
style), and I'd love to see movies that were true to the best parts of those
comics. The only good FF movie we've gotten so far was called The Incredibles,
but there's no reason why the real FF movies couldn't be at least as good and
successful.

------
metallah
What does this mean for the Star Wars Franchise?

~~~
Dirlewanger
The same that it's been since they bought it in 2012: will be subject to
decades of safe, mediocre, corporate focus group-mediated content

------
roryisok
fingers crossed for firefly season 2

~~~
jandrese
This is a monkey paw thing where you get it, but it's the bland by-the-numbers
Disney version carefully built by committee to avoid offending the largest
number of people and just revisits all of the same ideas from the first
season.

~~~
Spivak
I really don't get why people are upset about this. A company trying to make
money by going for mass appeal. _For shame_.

Until someone shows that an unsafe movie can be popular it's going to continue
just how it's been since Gilgamesh.

~~~
roryisok
Logan, guardians of the galaxy and Deadpool fairly soundly proved that unsafe
movies can be popular. But at Disney it's about maximizing profits. If you can
get all of the family to go see a movie rather than just anyone over 16,
you're making more money.

------
thrillgore
Disney is now officially too big to fail. This deal needs to be stopped right
away.

~~~
swarnie_
Not really, the world doesn't end if Disney goes broke. its not like 2008
where 60% of all high street bank accounts were in danger.

------
Shivetya
which means less content for netflix I would assume. not worried to much about
the R rated content they got, they are staunch anti gambling not exactly
staunch anti R except under the original brand

------
shmerl
As if media consolidation is bringing any benefits, rather than harm.

------
gremlinsinc
Any chance Disney could bring back firefly?

------
qwerty456127
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTk6m3U54po](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTk6m3U54po)

------
paulus_magnus2
Why not go all the way and merge all companies into 1 big one.

Being born on the wrong side of the iron curtain I already saw economy based
on monopolies. Communism failed because prices were centrally set. We knew how
to build useful things (that don't break 1 day after warranty) but not which
ones to build and how many.

(wiki)

A price signal is information conveyed to consumers and producers, via the
price charged for a product or service, which provides a signal to increase or
decrease supply or demand.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_signal](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_signal)

~~~
bighi
That's what I've been saying for a long time. Some people say "it's just
capitalism working as intended", but that's not exactly true.

A lot of the mechanisms of capitalism depend on competition. Capitalism
without competition is no different from Communism or any other system in
which one party rules supreme.

~~~
vidarh
Incidentally Marx argument for why he believed a revolution would eventually
become inevitable _also_ depends entirely on competition: He argued that it is
the ongoing effectivisation of capitalism through competition that will
eventually trigger revolutions by making too many people unemployed and/or
destitute.

------
jamiethompson
So what you're saying is that Disney will own The Simpsons?
[https://i.redd.it/cx2j4c9aufwz.jpg](https://i.redd.it/cx2j4c9aufwz.jpg)
(predicted in 1998)

~~~
ekianjo
That's visionary. Actually the Simpsons got lucky with several of their goofy
predictions, it's always amusing after the fact.

~~~
amelius
Can we have a list of mispredictions?

~~~
andruby
* Trump as president, predicted in the 2000 episode "Bart To The Future" [0]

* Top 10 Simpsons Predictions That Came True [1] (not a great video though)

[0]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZyaDKaun7w](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZyaDKaun7w)

[1]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQGXofzQEiE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQGXofzQEiE)

~~~
jandrese
But they assumed that a President Trump would put the country in a huge debt
hole, and the Republicans have assured us that their enormous giveway to
billionaires would cause the economy to grow by 3% annually for the next 10
years, just like every other time that policy has completely failed to do
that.

------
chatwinra
[https://youtu.be/PXBJIZ1NXFU](https://youtu.be/PXBJIZ1NXFU)

(Epic Rap Battles of History, Stan Lee vs Jim Henson)

Whole video is good imo, but skip to around 2:06 onwards for the relevant bit.
Sums up the feeling nicely I think.

~~~
dingo_bat
Awesome episode this one. It looked to be ending at a nice amicable juncture
and then the epic sinister twist. It's mind blowing how many properties Disney
owns.

~~~
logfromblammo
When I heard the news, all I could think of was this Lee vs. Henson ERB, and
the South Park episode where the mouse becomes a rampaging daikaiju.

------
frik
What will happen to the Nakatomi Plaza / Fox Plaza (skyscraper in LA). Would
like to see a remake with little CGI, like the original Die Hard 1/2.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_Plaza_(Los_Angeles)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_Plaza_\(Los_Angeles\))

~~~
matt-attack
Firstly, Fox doesn't own that building. It's owned by The Irvine Company. The
50 acre Fox Lot next door however is stated to _not_ be part of the Disney
deal [1]. Meaning, Rupert would retain ownership of the land (valued at $1.8
Billion).

[1] [https://deadline.com/2017/12/fox-studios-lot-future-
disney-m...](https://deadline.com/2017/12/fox-studios-lot-future-disney-
merger-1202225435/)

------
callesgg
"There Can Be Only One"

~~~
dovdovdov
\- Capitalism, errr, wait no....

~~~
jjoonathan
Market freedom leads to competition, doncha know?

~~~
bovermyer
Market freedom leads to consolidation which leads to the exact opposite of
competition.

This is why the United States, contrary to popular opinion, is not a purely
capitalist nation; it is instead a hybrid between socialism and capitalism.
Reasonable regulation protects the free market.

~~~
nickik
Its simply false that market freedom always leads to consolidation. There is a
very complex interplay between transaction cost, information problems, scaling
economics and so on. You are just throwing out populist phrases because they
sound good.

The solution is not to declare some kind of neo-progressive trust busting but
locking at individual industries and figuring out why they are consolidating
and if it will be bad.

In this case Disney can only do what they do because massive help from
government protecting their intellectual property. Intellectual property, both
patent and copyright, need reform. This is the relevant practical problem
here.

~~~
hypersoar
So, I'm curious: why _not_ engage in some neo-progressive trust busting?

~~~
nickik
Because the whole point of a market is that it acts as a process to discover
the most efficient way to do something in a complex system.

Every individual market has huge amounts of complexity by itself and competes
for the same resources as many other market creating huge amounts of complex
dependencies.

If in these system a particular structure emerges, there is reason to think
that it is actually pretty efficient compared to most alternatives.

Just willingly going around trust-busting because 'cooperation are evil' or
some other popular phrase is a terrible idea most of the time it will hurt
more then it does good.

If you want to do something useful make sure the citizens have rights and that
there is a good legal system to arbitrate the interaction of people,
companies, non-profits, clubs and so on.

Real change happens because a change in the rules of the system, not in a
temporary heroic political trust-busting campaign to score political points.

------
ralmidani
As an American, I've always found it mind-boggling how average Americans cheer
these types of M/As. The argument is that consolidation leads to more
"efficiency" and "synergy", but those benefits are usually not passed down to
consumers (actually, market domination allows a company like Disney to price-
gouge even more on movies and merchandise).

~~~
guntars
This is basically just entertainment (Fox News included) so they can do
whatever they want. If this was healthcare, for example, it would require a
bit more scrutiny IMO.

~~~
ralmidani
As noted in this thread, the entertainment industry is almost single-handedly
responsible for the draconian Copyright laws in the US. So the harm caused by
consolidation can extend beyond entertainment (think software).

Also, there is almost no alarm being raised by consolidation in healthcare,
such as the CVS/Aetna deal.

------
randomerr
It's mostly was they can control over the animated titles the Marvel
franchises. Next is Sony studios.

~~~
empath75
I suspect that’s part of it but you don’t spend billions of dollars just to
make a few X-men movies.

~~~
no1youknowz
Yes you do.

According to wired, [0] Disney paid Lucas Arts $4.5B, which half was cash.

In 2016, [1] The Force Awakens made $1.54B globally. Maybe it's more now.

Lets say that the last Jedi manages the same success? Well, they made their
money back and the new rumored trilogy. That's profit.

When you can put Spiderman and the X-men in the same universe as the Avengers
and do the next 20 or 30 super hero movies where one, two, three, four, etc
characters from the universe makes an appearance?

I'm pretty sure fans of whatever franchise will line up to throw money in
seeing the movies.

This really sounds like a no brainer to me.

[0]: [https://www.wired.com/2015/12/disney-star-wars-return-on-
inv...](https://www.wired.com/2015/12/disney-star-wars-return-on-investment/)

[1]: [https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/box-office-star-
wars-...](https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/box-office-star-wars-
force-852198)

~~~
CPLX
Your math is impeccable. But I do wonder if someone is considering the
possibility that people will get tired of superhero movies in the relatively
near future and the whole concept will seem dated.

~~~
emodendroket
I've been hoping for this for... I mean it must be a decade now.

~~~
pessimizer
I thought I could wait out Britney Spears, and the entire industry became
Britney Spears, and stayed Britney Spears.

------
cromwellian
Disney missed an opportunity to improve the world by shutting down Fox News or
changing its editorial viewpoint to be more in line with their own and
retiring th Murdoch’s completely from the news propaganda game.

~~~
kylehotchkiss
I was feeling the same

