James Murdoch Not Moving to Disney If Fox Deal Closes
James Murdoch will not move to The Walt Disney Co. if a $52.4 billion deal for 21st Century Fox’s media assets is completed and will instead look to start a venture capital fund to invest in digital and international media businesses, The Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday.
Murdoch, the chairman of Fox as well as the U.K.'s Sky, was expected to take up a senior executive position at Disney if and when the deal closed. However, in the months after the deal was announced, Disney CEO Bob Iger has opted against giving specifics on what role Murdoch would take at the company.
If the deal closes, Murdoch could be the odd man out, as reports suggest that his older brother Lachlan and his father Rupert are expected to remain with what’s now being called New Fox, consisting of Fox News Channel, Fox Business Network and the Fox broadcast network.
According to the WSJ report, Murdoch has told associates that he will not be moving to Disney and will return to venture capital and media investment, areas he was involved in before he took on the top executive roles at his father’s media empire. Murdoch is expected to walk away with $1 billion if the Disney-Fox deal goes through, and people familiar with the matter told the WSJ that a prospective Murdoch-run venture capita fund would invest in digital and international media businesses.
In addition to his current role at Fox, Murdoch retains boardroom positions at sister company News Corp, Tesla, Yankee Global Enterprises, Vice Media and his wife’s company Quadrivium.
Those top 3 are in the same order I’d rank my top 3 Marvel movies.
Ragnarok! How is Marvel’s best movie the worst for keeping audience interest?
What’s also interesting is that for all IW’s success, in adjusted terms it’s likely going to end up below Avengers, which did $705m at today’s prices.
Justice League came out its third week.
Yeah, as with a lot of these single-data-point comparisons I think it’s hard to read much into the numbers without the context around each release. The general environment for superhero movies changed a huge amount between the release of the first entry on that list (Iron Man) and the last (Ragnarok).
Yup it’s interesting but there are a lot of variables, as Paul says Justice League came out on the weekend being analysed aimed at pretty much the exact same audience. Black Panther had nothing of a similar genre to compete with for 3 weeks until Tomb Raider came out.
If only I had said there were a lot of variables in my post about it.
I don’t think it’s a criticism of your post, just part of discussing the question you posed (ie. is this an accurate reflection of the general public’s enjoyment of the movies?).
I think there are too many variables to make it as simple and straightforward as that, but at the same time it gives us a bit of information about their relative staying power.
They’re treated as seriously as real life. People make jokes all the time, constantly, non-stop, even in serious situations. Very rarely making people laugh out loud, but that’s not the point. It’s just what humans do, make light of things. I find the Avengers’ quips very naturalistic in that regard. They’re what I hear every single day at work.
… I’m honestly not sure if David is joking or being serious.
Your face is joking.
(See what I did there? Made a silly quip even in the middle of making a serious point. Gosh, it’s almost like Stark ribbing Cap in the middle of a fight. And this post is now probably the most self-referential post in the history of the Internet. It’s the Grant Morrison of posts.)
Not really Morrison-esque as the psychedelic feeling is missing.
… I’m still not sure if David is joking or being serious.
David is senile. Does that answer your question?
Seriously, a movie where the dialogue is 100% serious with no character ever cracking a joke at another character’s expense is the least realisitic movie you will ever see.
Batman was fun an quippy in the 1960’s, but that was 50 years ago. It’s 2018, you may not have noticed.
That’s not to say you can’t have fun Batman cartoons where he’s this fun daredevil guy, Batman is a very versatile character, but in the Nolan era with this generation of fans Batman is a serious guy doing serious business. He’s almost a parody of himself considering Lego Batman exists, but that’s still the version of the character we’ve mostly consumed for the past 30 years. It’d take a huge set of balls to turn Bruce Wayne into another Tony Stark.
You know he hasn’t Jim. It’s forever 1973 in Meadowsland.
Almost as huge as those needed to turn Black Panther into an A-list character?
Sometimes the less obvious gamble pays off.
(Though I agree with you, Adam-West-Batman wouldn’t work today. Except in Lego.)
It’s a very different situation. Black Panther is a new character, you’re establishing a tone with him rather than changing it. Changing Batman would be the most radical thing Warners would have done in the last 20 years.
It might have been the right move thinking about it - Marvel has succeeded on fun quippy characters, DC has failed with it’s grim serious characters. I’ve said forever that the secret sauce of blockbusters is joyfulness, it’s led to successes like Kingsman and Deadpool.
However changing Batman would be like changing James Bond from miserable drunk Daniel Craig to some sort of modern day Roger Moore. The last time they tried to make Batman silly was the George Clooney era, and that effectively killed the character for a decade.