For the content of a conference? The Power 5 must add to have a good content to satisfied everybody. Does every fan of college football in fan of the P5 schools? Nope. There are millions who are fans of the G5 and FCS schools that could bring those fans into the P5 fanship.

(12-21-2015 12:14 AM)CintiFan Wrote:  

(12-21-2015 12:10 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(12-21-2015 12:07 AM)CintiFan Wrote:  Here's all you need to know about Richard Greenfield's analytical powers: ...

... on its own, it's not substantial evidence.

Go research his other picks, not a top analyst.

So, IOW, that was not all you need to know.

(12-20-2015 07:55 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(12-20-2015 07:37 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  The headline is silly. Back when Marvel was independent, the same pattern happened around Spiderman's release - the stock surged ahead of the movie's release, and began to tumble on the first day the movie was in theaters. This is what happens when fanboys start trading stocks.

Except Disney is a cable company that is losing subcribers. 45% of their bottom line is the cable business.

That's putting it way too strongly, as it means that 55% of their bottom line is something else. Disney would be a $30 Billion Revenue/$7 Billion Operating Income firm even if its entire media/cable operation vanished tomorrow.

That said, trouble in their cable segment isn't good news for any conferences hoping that ESPN will be bidding lavishly for their media rights or creating conference networks with them in the next couple of years.

(12-20-2015 10:26 AM)domer1978 Wrote:  

(12-20-2015 10:18 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The B1G wil be fine. College sports rights are about 10% of the cost of professional sports rights, but fill huge blocks of broadcast time for the ESPN networks. College sports rights are not the problem for ESPN--it's the multi billion dollar pro sports contracts that fill relatively small amounts of broadcast time. However, it should be noted that many sports contracts that appeared to be way overvalued when signed, have turned out to be tremendous bargains over the life of the contract.

I agree the Big will be fine, but the ACC will not be getting a channel. The AAC likely won't get more money added to there deal either.

Maybe--maybe not. All we are talking about is a change in the delivery/billing model. Whether it's streaming content or modified cable model where YOU decide what you will pay for and what you will do without---the basics are the same---consumers are still demanding CONTENT. As long as content remains king (and it is still king, that's why streaming services are now producing content), then ESPN's dominating control of sports content will remain a tremendously valuable market changing asset. All that is changing is the manner in which you will pay for your content.

People who don't like sports will no longer be subsidizing the cost of ESPN, so it's cost as a stand alone network will increase to the consumer. But that dynamic is not a one way street. The cost of hundreds of networks in which sports fans may have zero interest (for example --the Food channel, Oxygen, and Lifetime Network, etc) will no longer be subsidized by sports fans. In the end, I'll no doubt pay much more for ESPN, but my overall cable bill may very well end up being less than it is now.

Under such a model, it's possible the ACC will get It's own network, but it will have to be a self supporting entity that can carry the cost of its own freight. The ACC may very well be able to do that. It may not. I have no idea, but I wouldn't eliminate the possibility that it can still happen since the ACC has the most populated footprint of the P5.

(12-20-2015 07:55 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(12-20-2015 07:37 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  The headline is silly. Back when Marvel was independent, the same pattern happened around Spiderman's release - the stock surged ahead of the movie's release, and began to tumble on the first day the movie was in theaters. This is what happens when fanboys start trading stocks.

Except Disney is a cable company that is losing subcribers. 45% of their bottom line is the cable business.

It think it is more that 45% of their PROFIT is cable, not their business. I know that is not exactly what you said, just pointing it out, that ESPN (and their other TV properties), generate a highly disproportionate amount of their earnings and profit than their other properties.


Enter rant, separate from your comment Bison. The author the OP is quoting has a fundamental lack of understanding of their business, if he thinks that is ESPN related in terms of "fault" of Disney's lowering profits. ESPN's profits aren't really even down: they just didn't grow as much as expected. Think about that? Now Wall Street reacts to that, because no matter how well you do or don't do, as far as immediate stock performance goes, all Wall Street cares about is how you did relative to expectactions. If they expect 4% growth and you give them 3.5%, your stock tumbles. If they expect you to not even be profitable, but lose 10% this year, and you only lose 8%, your stock price will skyrocket (as someone who works in banking/finance, I literally have seen this scenario play out many times over the years).


The problem is, ESPN was more or less hiding Disney's losses in other core units, for a lack of a better term, INCLUDING the purchase of Lucasfilms, which sets them up for big future increases. They aren't truly hiding them per se, but what I mean is they were using the robust ESPN profit to cover for anyone else's short comings, or to shield from criticism of the LucasFilms acquisition, as many thought they would never recoup the costs at the time (before the most recent two years with films crushing $1 billion on the regular, and $2 billion per film being a possibility). Basically it is a movie scene come to life, for those who have seen Beverly Hills Cop II :





ESPN's slight reduction in profit made it harder from Disney to deflect their other losses, or acquisition costs, AND made themselves an easy target, for those who don't want to take blame in their own departments. The thing is, acquisitions like Lucas films and Marvel will make then HUGE profits over the lifetime of their existence, but would seriously hamper their quarterly stock quotas when they were acquired, if not for the ridiculous sums ESPN brought in. It allowed them to more or less make those moves out of operating income, so to speak, and still show a profit while doing so.

Plus, and this is important, the cuts that ESPN is being forced to make, will not remotely make a dent on their balance sheet. However "announcing" such cuts, and making it look like ESPN is being overhauled, does wonders for a stock price.

(12-20-2015 10:23 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Disney stock will be up again on Monday because the "new news" will be SW7 having more than twice the first-weekend gross of the previous highest-grossing movie, which, more importantly than a box office record, validates Iger's moves in buying Lucasfilm, Pixar, and Marvel and turning them into even more prolific cash machines than they were before.
.

Something else to keep in mind. Personally I think Disney probably paid too much for Lucasfilms, since I cannot imagine anyone else was going to pay anythign close to it, but they are the one company that was best poised to profit so much on the franchise, in a way no other Studio, or Lucas himself could never do. It has been estimated that when cross platform revenues are accounted for, Disney could see a net profit, not revenue, but profit of $2.7 billion for just the first movie alone, and that by the time the second movie finishes its theatrical run, they will have already turned a profit on the Lucasfilm's purchase, with more movies, and other intellectual properties still to come. And I think Marvel more or less speaks for itself. I don't think anyone else but Disney could have pulled that off.

I was thinking: you know how every 10-15 years some new technology comes around, that allows studios to make huge profits from old movies? In 2020, Disney gets the rights to 5 of the previous 6 Stars Wars movies (all but the first one). Whatever the next big thing is, Disney will have a way to profit off these films because of it.

(12-21-2015 11:55 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  Personally I think Disney probably paid too much for Lucasfilms, since I cannot imagine anyone else was going to pay anythign close to it, but they are the one company that was best poised to profit so much on the franchise, in a way no other Studio, or Lucas himself could never do.

I don't think it was a question of Disney overbidding in a bidding war. Based on an article I read, it was all about Iger gradually convincing Lucas to sell instead of holding onto it, so Disney probably figured they had to offer a ginormous amount or Lucas would not have sold at all. And, as you mention, Disney will easily make a net profit off of the franchise that exceeds the $4 billion they paid Lucas.

(12-21-2015 12:41 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(12-21-2015 11:55 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  Personally I think Disney probably paid too much for Lucasfilms, since I cannot imagine anyone else was going to pay anythign close to it, but they are the one company that was best poised to profit so much on the franchise, in a way no other Studio, or Lucas himself could never do.

I don't think it was a question of Disney overbidding in a bidding war. Based on an article I read, it was all about Iger gradually convincing Lucas to sell instead of holding onto it, so Disney probably figured they had to offer a ginormous amount or Lucas would not have sold at all. And, as you mention, Disney will easily make a net profit off of the franchise that exceeds the $4 billion they paid Lucas.

Frankly, Disney got a bargain on both Lucasfilms and Marvel. Anyone that thought that they had overpaid several years ago weren't looking at the big picture of the top-to-bottom branding that those properties provide beyond movies (i.e. merchandising, theme park tie-ins, etc.). When you combine those two properties with the Disney Princesses, the company basically has a stranglehold on the wallets of parents of all boys and girls for the foreseeable future.

(12-21-2015 11:55 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  I was thinking: you know how every 10-15 years some new technology comes around, that allows studios to make huge profits from old movies? In 2020, Disney gets the rights to 5 of the previous 6 Stars Wars movies (all but the first one). Whatever the next big thing is, Disney will have a way to profit off these films because of it.

Here's an easy way for them to make profits regardless of the technology: sell videos/Blu-rays/DVDs/*anything* of the ORIGINAL versions of the original trilogy that my generation saw when we were children (not the souped-up Special Editions). That will instantly make gazillions of dollars. Han shot first!

I am not a big Start Wars fan (it's just a movie I saw as a kid to me), but were the special edition version not better than the original video releases? I thought they were remastered, with some extended scenes? Were they not like most DVD's that allow you to watch the original version and the "extended version," I.e. the version before it was edited to make it better?

(12-21-2015 04:52 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  I am not a big Start Wars fan (it's just a movie I saw as a kid to me), but were the special edition version not better than the original video releases? I thought they were remastered, with some extended scenes? Were they not like most DVD's that allow you to watch the original version and the "extended version," I.e. the version before it was edited to make it better?

Nooooooooo. I wish that were just the case. George Lucas, with his infinite tinkering, believed that his movies were not "complete". So, he went back and inserted CGI characters (as they didn't have that type of technology when the films were originally made), swapped out some actors in some cases, changed up the musical score in several places (including the very final scene in Return of the Jedi in a glaring manner) and even flat-out re-did scenes in other instances. (Just Google "Han shot first".) This was not just about extended scenes - he literally CHANGED the movies.

At the same time, Lucas purposely did NOT include the original versions at all in any Blu-ray or DVD releases. The last time that the original versions that we saw when we were kids were released were on video cassettes nearly 20 years ago.

I have no issue with Lucas going back and doing what he wanted with the movies as a general matter - those were his creations. However, his refusal to acknowledge that there is an entire world out there that just wants to watch how the movies looked in 1977, 1980 and 1983 has been grating. It was more about his attitude that somehow the original versions were "bad" (despite netting him $4.1 billion) and that we're somehow supposed to like the Special Editions better. Disney now owns the property, and my hope is that within a few years, that will be reversed (because it's truly easy money - there are LOTS of people that will buy those original versions immediately).

Oh. See I knew they were remastered, and had some additional scenes (I remember the Jabba the Hut CGI), but I thought the originals were on there as well, like with other reissued movies.

Do you want the true originals, or would remastered originals be acceptable? I.e. cleaned up with better sound for DVD and Blu Ray, but no changes to the content.

(12-21-2015 03:09 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(12-21-2015 12:41 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(12-21-2015 11:55 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  Personally I think Disney probably paid too much for Lucasfilms, since I cannot imagine anyone else was going to pay anythign close to it, but they are the one company that was best poised to profit so much on the franchise, in a way no other Studio, or Lucas himself could never do.

I don't think it was a question of Disney overbidding in a bidding war. Based on an article I read, it was all about Iger gradually convincing Lucas to sell instead of holding onto it, so Disney probably figured they had to offer a ginormous amount or Lucas would not have sold at all. And, as you mention, Disney will easily make a net profit off of the franchise that exceeds the $4 billion they paid Lucas.

Frankly, Disney got a bargain on both Lucasfilms and Marvel. Anyone that thought that they had overpaid several years ago weren't looking at the big picture of the top-to-bottom branding that those properties provide beyond movies (i.e. merchandising, theme park tie-ins, etc.). When you combine those two properties with the Disney Princesses, the company basically has a stranglehold on the wallets of parents of all boys and girls for the foreseeable future.

Marvel was a slam-dunk acquisition, like Pixar, especially since Disney didn't have much in the way of sequel-type blockbuster properties (e.g., Harry Potter).

But the jury is still out on Lucas, even with this huge movie out right now. Too early to tell.

(12-21-2015 06:23 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  Oh. See I knew they were remastered, and had some additional scenes (I remember the Jabba the Hut CGI), but I thought the originals were on there as well, like with other reissued movies.

Do you want the true originals, or would remastered originals be acceptable? I.e. cleaned up with better sound for DVD and Blu Ray, but no changes to the content.

Oh, remastered originals would be fantastic. I just want those story-altering scenes deleted out of there.

(12-21-2015 11:28 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(12-21-2015 06:23 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  Oh. See I knew they were remastered, and had some additional scenes (I remember the Jabba the Hut CGI), but I thought the originals were on there as well, like with other reissued movies.

Do you want the true originals, or would remastered originals be acceptable? I.e. cleaned up with better sound for DVD and Blu Ray, but no changes to the content.

Oh, remastered originals would be fantastic. I just want those story-altering scenes deleted out of there.

We had the original version on Video Disc. A few minutes of it were cut out by the time it hit VHS. I remember some of it was the chase scene in the Death Star. The order by the storm troopers to "Close the blast door." which is still in the versions today actually followed the part of the chase where the same storm troopers ordered "Open the blast door." I don't think that changed the plot very much, but having seen it in the theater and then again on Video Disc the original way, and then missing it on the VHS was irritating and made us start watching for other missing details instead of just watching the movie.

BTW: I thought "The Force Awakens" was terrific.

(12-21-2015 06:51 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-21-2015 03:09 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(12-21-2015 12:41 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(12-21-2015 11:55 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  Personally I think Disney probably paid too much for Lucasfilms, since I cannot imagine anyone else was going to pay anythign close to it, but they are the one company that was best poised to profit so much on the franchise, in a way no other Studio, or Lucas himself could never do.

I don't think it was a question of Disney overbidding in a bidding war. Based on an article I read, it was all about Iger gradually convincing Lucas to sell instead of holding onto it, so Disney probably figured they had to offer a ginormous amount or Lucas would not have sold at all. And, as you mention, Disney will easily make a net profit off of the franchise that exceeds the $4 billion they paid Lucas.

Frankly, Disney got a bargain on both Lucasfilms and Marvel. Anyone that thought that they had overpaid several years ago weren't looking at the big picture of the top-to-bottom branding that those properties provide beyond movies (i.e. merchandising, theme park tie-ins, etc.). When you combine those two properties with the Disney Princesses, the company basically has a stranglehold on the wallets of parents of all boys and girls for the foreseeable future.

Marvel was a slam-dunk acquisition, like Pixar, especially since Disney didn't have much in the way of sequel-type blockbuster properties (e.g., Harry Potter).

But the jury is still out on Lucas, even with this huge movie out right now. Too early to tell.

Hmmmm... I don't know if Marvel was really as much of a slam dunk at the time. (Yes to Pixar as a slam dunk - they had Toy Story, Cars and other properties already in the bag which fit perfectly with Disney.) Remember that Marvel had sold off the movie rights to what were considered to be their best assets (i.e. Spider-Man, X-Men), so people were questioning how much Disney could really monetize the Marvel purchase. Disney's plan to release Iron Man, Captain America and Thor movies separately as a lead-up *before* The Avengers was released (as opposed to the traditional thinking that a movie like The Avengers should be released first and then have the spin-offs afterwards) was thought to be a huge risk in the movie industry. Disney really had to actively work to make The Avengers and its spin-offs into the mega-franchise that it is today - there wasn't a template for it previously and those Avengers characters weren't considered to be marquee properties compared to Spider-Man and Wolverine before Disney came along.

Lucasfilm was a very, very, very safe investment by comparison. Star Wars was about as safe of an investment as you can get in Hollywood. As bad as the prequels were, they still made *massive* profits because the brand was so strong. All Disney had to do with the new Star Wars movie was not f**k it up.

(12-21-2015 11:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-21-2015 11:28 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(12-21-2015 06:23 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  Oh. See I knew they were remastered, and had some additional scenes (I remember the Jabba the Hut CGI), but I thought the originals were on there as well, like with other reissued movies.

Do you want the true originals, or would remastered originals be acceptable? I.e. cleaned up with better sound for DVD and Blu Ray, but no changes to the content.

Oh, remastered originals would be fantastic. I just want those story-altering scenes deleted out of there.

We had the original version on Video Disc. A few minutes of it were cut out by the time it hit VHS. I remember some of it was the chase scene in the Death Star. The order by the storm troopers to "Close the blast door." which is still in the versions today actually followed the part of the chase where the same storm troopers ordered "Open the blast door." I don't think that changed the plot very much, but having seen it in the theater and then again on Video Disc the original way, and then missing it on the VHS was irritating and made us start watching for other missing details instead of just watching the movie.

BTW: I thought "The Force Awakens" was terrific.

The Force Awakens was awesome. I got to take my 6-year old twins and they had a blast, too. Honestly, I can't wait for the next one to come out. It left me wanting more, which is all that I wanted from this new Star Wars movie (as the prequels didn't make me feel that way).

(12-21-2015 11:47 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(12-21-2015 11:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-21-2015 11:28 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(12-21-2015 06:23 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  Oh. See I knew they were remastered, and had some additional scenes (I remember the Jabba the Hut CGI), but I thought the originals were on there as well, like with other reissued movies.

Do you want the true originals, or would remastered originals be acceptable? I.e. cleaned up with better sound for DVD and Blu Ray, but no changes to the content.

Oh, remastered originals would be fantastic. I just want those story-altering scenes deleted out of there.

We had the original version on Video Disc. A few minutes of it were cut out by the time it hit VHS. I remember some of it was the chase scene in the Death Star. The order by the storm troopers to "Close the blast door." which is still in the versions today actually followed the part of the chase where the same storm troopers ordered "Open the blast door." I don't think that changed the plot very much, but having seen it in the theater and then again on Video Disc the original way, and then missing it on the VHS was irritating and made us start watching for other missing details instead of just watching the movie.

BTW: I thought "The Force Awakens" was terrific.

The Force Awakens was awesome. I got to take my 6-year old twins and they had a blast, too. Honestly, I can't wait for the next one to come out. It left me wanting more, which is all that I wanted from this new Star Wars movie (as the prequels didn't make me feel that way).

I totally agree. Half way through "The Phantom Menace" I found myself daydreaming that Darth Maul would put a quick end to Jar Jar Binks. And there was absolutely no chemistry between Hayden Christensen and Ewan McGregor and the stilted dialogue exchanged between them was more than tedious.

With this movie there is chemistry and the new characters all had something relevant to add. I guess if there was something even close to a weak spot it was that the arch villain Snoke looked like a reprise of Gollum.

(12-22-2015 12:31 AM)JRsec Wrote:  I totally agree. Half way through "The Phantom Menace" I found myself daydreaming that Darth Maul would put a quick end to Jar Jar Binks. And there was absolutely no chemistry between Hayden Christensen and Ewan McGregor and the stilted dialogue exchanged between them was more than tedious.

With this movie there is chemistry and the new characters all had something relevant to add. I guess if there was something even close to a weak spot it was that the arch villain Snoke looked like a reprise of Gollum.

Hold on! Jar Jar Binks is awesome. He could have defeated the emperor with just his clumsiness alone.

(12-21-2015 05:04 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(12-21-2015 04:52 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  I am not a big Start Wars fan (it's just a movie I saw as a kid to me), but were the special edition version not better than the original video releases? I thought they were remastered, with some extended scenes? Were they not like most DVD's that allow you to watch the original version and the "extended version," I.e. the version before it was edited to make it better?

Nooooooooo. I wish that were just the case. George Lucas, with his infinite tinkering, believed that his movies were not "complete". So, he went back and inserted CGI characters (as they didn't have that type of technology when the films were originally made), swapped out some actors in some cases, changed up the musical score in several places (including the very final scene in Return of the Jedi in a glaring manner) and even flat-out re-did scenes in other instances. (Just Google "Han shot first".) This was not just about extended scenes - he literally CHANGED the movies.

At the same time, Lucas purposely did NOT include the original versions at all in any Blu-ray or DVD releases. The last time that the original versions that we saw when we were kids were released were on video cassettes nearly 20 years ago.

I have no issue with Lucas going back and doing what he wanted with the movies as a general matter - those were his creations. However, his refusal to acknowledge that there is an entire world out there that just wants to watch how the movies looked in 1977, 1980 and 1983 has been grating. It was more about his attitude that somehow the original versions were "bad" (despite netting him $4.1 billion) and that we're somehow supposed to like the Special Editions better. Disney now owns the property, and my hope is that within a few years, that will be reversed (because it's truly easy money - there are LOTS of people that will buy those original versions immediately).

Even those VHS tapes had content changed (not quite as obvious of course). Heck there are so many changes that it would make heads spin.

For instance in the original release it did not have "episode 4" or "A New Hope" as a subtitle. That was added in the 1981 rerelease. So even back then he was making changes.