• Disney and partners have settled with Fubo to launch the Venu sports streaming service.
• Venu's launch was delayed over an antitrust suit filed by Fubo.
• Disney is set to merge Hulu + Live TV with Fubo, creating a major digital TV service.

Remember Venu, the sports streaming service co-owned by Disney, Fox, and Warner Bros. Discovery?

Unless you spend a lot of time focused on the sports media business, you probably don't. That's because the service never launched: It was supposed to go live in the fall but got derailed by an antitrust suit filed by Fubo, a small streaming service.

Now it's again set to launch — after Disney and its partners essentially paid Fubo to drop the suit. Hearings in the case were supposed to start Monday.

Part of the payment will be cash, but there's a more eye-popping, and confusing, part of the deal: Disney plans to combine its Hulu + Live TV streaming service — its cablelike package of TV channels — with Fubo's similar service into a new company, which doesn't have a name yet.

The combined company should have about 6 million subscribers, making it the second-largest all-digital TV service after YouTube TV, which has some 8 million subscribers. And it would be the sixth-largest pay-TV service, period.

(Important note: This deal does not affect Disney's much bigger Hulu subscription on-demand service — the one most people think about when they think of Hulu. That one had 47.4 million subscribers as of September; Hulu + Live TV, which costs much more, has 4.6 million subscribers.)

We can get into a few more details in a moment. But to me, the biggest takeaway is this: It's a reminder that Disney, which is launching its own stand-alone ESPN streaming service this fall, isn't fully confident about that service's prospects. That's why it wanted to be in Venu — to be part of a bigger sports streaming service, in case a meaningful number of people wanted streaming sports from ESPN and other networks as well.

And now that Venu is (very likely) to launch this year, it means that by next fall, ESPN watchers will have a lot of options: They can pay for stand-alone ESPN; they can pay for it as part of a sports-streaming package along with other channels like ABC, TNT, and Fox; or they can pay for it as part of a very big bundle of channels, delivered by a variety of traditional and digital pay-TV companies.

Onto the details: The new, unnamed Disney/Fubo joint venture would be 70% owned by Disney, which would also control its board. But Fubo's existing management team would run the service. The deal also allows Fubo to create a new "skinny" bundle of networks including ESPN and ABC. And people who are already paying for Fubo or Hulu + Live TV via existing apps would be able to keep doing that.

Fubo also gets cash as part of the deal. Disney, Fox, and WBD plan to collectively pay the company $220 million, and next year Disney is set to lend the company $145 million to help pay down Fubo's other debt obligations. Fubo will get a $130 million fee if the deal doesn't get regulatory approval.

Fubo shareholders like the deal, pushing the stock up some 172% Monday to about $4. (Fubo had a brief pandemic-fueled run in 2021 when its shares zoomed up to $49, but since then, the market has mostly ignored it.)

So, when will Venu launch? No one is saying, but my hunch is this spring.

Remember that Venu was originally supposed to launch in the fall, when college and pro football kicked off. But Disney is already planning on launching "Flagship" — its ESPN-only service — this fall for the same football-related reasons, and it wouldn't make a lot of sense to launch both services at the same time.

So I would expect Venu to go up much earlier once the joint venture, which has been mostly mothballed for months, is ready for prime time. Some big sports dates coming up to keep in mind: The Super Bowl is February 9; college basketball's big tournament kicks off in mid-March.

• I lived in NYC for three years and visited many of the spots featured in "Home Alone 2."
• Scenes from the 1992 movie look similar to NYC today. Some places, though, closed or never existed.
• Here's a look at how the movie holds up to reality. 

Early every holiday season, I make a cup of hot cocoa and watch one of the "Home Alone" movies.

For me, the Christmas season means endless holiday movies. A worldwide favorite is the "Home Alone" franchise.

The series comprises five films created by John Hughes and directed by a slew of famous directors, like Chris Columbus. 

Each film has all the essential elements a winter movie needs: the holiday season, great characters, funny bad guys, surprising cameos, and a plot full of twists and turns. 

After living in the city where "Home Alone 2: Lost In New York" was shot, it quickly became my favorite film from the series.

"Home Alone 2: Lost in New York" is a John Hughes and Chris Columbus collaboration following the first "Home Alone" movie, which took place in the Chicago suburbs. 

In "Home Alone 2," Kevin McCallister, played by Macaulay Culkin, is heading out for the holidays with his family. After a series of mistakes, McCallister ends up on the wrong plane — it's flying to NYC instead of Miami, where the rest of his family is headed.

Once he lands, McCallister explores the city solo and eventually runs into Harry and Marv, the same bad guys from the first movie, played by Joe Pesci and Daniel Stern.

The movie was released in 1992. More than 30 years later, many of the scenes look similar to NYC today.

I enjoyed reliving scenes and touring some of the real-life locations from the film while living in NYC.

"Home Alone 2" is filled with plenty of famous — and not so famous — New York destinations. 

I rewatched the classic Christmas movie to see how the film holds up to reality. 

The opening plot involves McCallister landing in an unfamiliar airport with views of New York.

After mistaking a man in a tan jacket for his father, McCallister arrives in NYC with the cityscape on full display in the background.

Initially feeling defeated, McCallister quickly realizes that a solo trip to New York City could be a fun adventure.

Let's just say I haven't seen views like that in real life at LaGuardia Airport.

Maybe it's because I'm always in a frantic rush to get to the airport on time, but the views from LaGuardia Airport's windows have yet to impress me as they did in the movie. 

McCallister then catches a taxi and heads into Manhattan on the Ed Koch Queensboro Bridge.

After the shock and worry of what just happened, McCallister decides to make the most of his stay in NYC.

Fortunately, he has his father's carry-on bag, complete with his dad's credit card, cash, and a Polaroid camera.

He hails a cab and crosses into Manhattan, where his adventure begins. 

The bridge is the same one that similarly marked the start or end of any adventure of mine in New York, and it looks like not much has changed since 1992.

In the movie, McCallister rides in a now-outdated taxi. Today, most taxis are modern cars, although they've kept their iconic yellow color. 

When it comes to the Ed Koch Queensboro Bridge, it hasn't changed. The only difference I spotted is that in 2010, "Ed Koch" was added to the front of the bridge's title after former Mayor Edward I. Koch.

Once he arrives in Manhattan, McCallister goes on a grand tour. A couple of quick shots feature him across the city. The first destination is Radio City Music Hall.

These scenes go by quickly as McCallister visits neighborhoods and iconic spots sprinkled across the entire island.

While the exterior of the music hall hasn't changed much since the film, it's missing the hordes of people I see swarming the destination.

The movie takes place during the holiday season. I was surprised there weren't more people in the background of this scene, which takes place in Midtown Manhattan, a neighborhood that is typically bustling with tourist activity.

Come wintertime, Radio City Music Hall typically teems with people eager to spot a Rockettes performance. 

Viewers also spot McCallister in front of Empire Diner, a classic, all-American establishment.

The short scene features McCallister crossing paths with a Santa on stilts outside the Empire Diner.

Today, the diner has a fresh look with a mural called "Mount Rushmore of Art."

The diner at 210 10th Avenue in New York's Chelsea neighborhood opened in 1976. 

Since then, the diner has closed and reopened a few times with new owners. Today, it's led by executive chef Jestin Feggan. 

The diner looks the same as it did in the movie, but behind it is a colorful mural painted by Eduardo Kobra. The mural features Frida Kahlo, Andy Warhol, Keith Haring, and Jean-Michel Basquiat.

 

After passing the diner, McCallister stops at Quong Yuen Shing & Co in Chinatown, which closed in 2003.

Quong Yuen Shing & Co. on Mott Street opened in 1891 in the heart of Chinatown and sold everything from salted duck eggs to medicinal herbs.

In the "Home Alone 2" script, it also sold firecrackers, which McCallister stuffs into his backpack as he exits the store. 

In the mid-1980s, the store received a new name, 32 Mott Street General Store, and in 2003, it closed in the aftermath of September 11, 2001, The New York Times reported.

While visitors can no longer stop at this specific spot, they can head to Chinatown in Lower Manhattan to explore its history and discover delicious eats.

Next, McCallister treks to the bottom of Manhattan for a view of the Statue of Liberty through coin-operated binoculars.

McCallister looks out into the water and spots the Statue of Liberty. Surprisingly, this will be the only time we see this iconic landmark in the two-hour movie. 

The binoculars are no longer there, but the park is still the best place in Manhattan to spot Lady Liberty.

The Battery, a 22-acre public park, is one of my favorite parks in Manhattan thanks to its water and greenery. 

For the most part, I think the movie gets it right. By that, I mean that the Statue of Liberty is far enough to need binoculars for a close-up view. However, you'll have to bring your own since the coin-operated ones no longer exist in the park.

McCallister manages to make his way to the top of one of the Twin Towers next.

The World Trade Center was comprised of seven buildings. McCallister makes his way up 110 stories to view the city from one of the Twin Towers.

 

While you can't head to the same observation deck, the One World Observatory offers a similar bird's-eye view of the city.

On September 11, 2001, both Twin Towers collapsed in a terrorist attack, destroying the observation deck McCallister visits.

The closest thing to McCallister's view today is the One World Observatory.

The experience is 102 stories high, compared to McCallister's 110 stories. It's also enclosed, unlike the Twin Towers' outdoor observation deck.

We spot McCallister at the Fulton Fish Market. He barely misses some familiar faces we haven't seen in "Home Alone 2" yet, Harry and Marv.

This scene is Harry and Marv's entrance to the movie. The two have escaped from prison and are spotted in New York in the back of a fish delivery truck. They've traveled to NYC to steal money. 

The fish market is portrayed as a bustling place in the movie. 

Visitors won't find the Fulton Fish Market at the same location anymore. In 2005, the fish market moved to Hunt's Point in the Bronx.

Today, the fish market is entirely different than the one pictured in "Home Alone 2."

Opened in 1822, the market existed at South Street Seaport for over a hundred years. In 2005, it moved to an enclosed space in the Bronx.

Tourists and buyers arrive early — the market opens at 2 a.m. on most days.

While it might look drastically different from the movie, I can guarantee it has the same smell.

After walking through the fish market, McCallister heads to Central Park. There, he sees The Plaza Hotel and has a run-in with the Pigeon Lady.

The Pigeon Lady will become an essential character later in the movie, but upon their first encounter, she scares McCallister.

McCallister runs away and heads to The Plaza Hotel, aka "New York's most exciting hotel experience," which is how McCallister refers to it while reciting a commercial he watched in the movie.

While I can't say if the hotel is New York City's most exciting from its exterior, it is real, and I've admired it from the same location McCallister did in this scene.

Standing in the southeast corner of Central Park, visitors can get a complete picture of the famous building. 

Its exterior hasn't changed much. The iconic hotel is still one of New York's most famous hotels. It was built in 1907, and in 1969, it was designated an official landmark by the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission. 

On the way to the Plaza, he runs past a statue of Argentine general José de San Martín.

The statue points McCallister in the direction of the hotel.

The statue can be spotted in Central Park South.

The general is known for helping Argentina, Chile, and Peru gain independence from the Spanish, according to NYC Parks.

Today, it looks the same as it did in the movie and can be spotted at Central Park South and Avenue of the Americas.

When McCallister finally makes it inside The Plaza Hotel, he has the guts to stage a fake hotel reservation — and meets a famous face.

Once McCallister finally makes it to the hotel, he explores the extravagant lobby. It's decorated for the holiday season, and pots are filled with poinsettias.

In the lobby, McCallister runs into Donald Trump, who is playing himself — the owner of The Plaza Hotel. As Business Insider previously reported, Trump, who no longer owns the hotel, insisted on having a cameo in the film. 

Later in the scene, McCallister uses a fake voice to call and make a reservation for a suite. 

While I haven't stayed in The Plaza Hotel, present-day images from the inside depict the same luxury created in the film.

McCallister enjoys the hotel's pool and orders an ultimate room service experience.

Since 1992, the hotel has updated some of its interior and offerings, but the essence and luxury of the experience remain the same.

My guess is that it's much more expensive compared to when McCallister would've stayed. According to the hotel's website, rooms are priced between $1,000 and $33,000 for a night this January. 

While McCallister enjoys the hotel's pool, Marv is ice skating at Wollman Rink in Central Park.

This scene is where the duo gets the idea to rob a toy store. 

Wollman Rink is a real ice skating rink and hasn't changed much since the 1990s.

I've watched plenty of children — and adults — take a tumble at Wollman Rink.

The ice skating rink opened in 1950. Each November, it opens to the public for skating. In the summer, the area is a popular pickball court location.  

Later, McCallister is ready to explore the city again, but this time, he hires a limousine to take him to Duncan's Toy Chest.

Here, McCallister sets foot into a store brimming with stuffed animals, musical instruments, and toys for all ages.

Duncan's Toy Chest doesn't exist in real life, but it is based on the actual toy store, FAO Schwarz.

Lonely Planet said that Duncan's Toy Chest is based on the real New York City toy store, FAO Schwarz.

The actual store wasn't used for filming. Instead, filming took place in Chicago, with exterior shots from Chicago's historic The Rookery and interior scenes filmed in The Uptown Theater, The Sun reported.

I've stopped at FAO Schwarz once or twice and spotted the same joy and excitement depicted in the film.

However, many physical elements have changed. The store temporarily closed in 2015 and moved locations, and in 2018, it reopened at 30 Rockefeller Plaza. 

In the time since the movie came out, many of the store's current toys are different from the ones seen in the movie.  

McCallister runs into Harry and Marv at the toy store and quickly darts into Central Park for his getaway.

As McCallister hops into the back of a horse-drawn carriage to escape Harry and Marv, the audience learns that this isn't the first, and likely won't be the last time McCallister visits the famous park.

In fact, McCallister wanders through Central Park a handful of times throughout the film. It's where McCallister spots the Plaza Hotel, stows away in a horse-drawn carriage, and befriends the Pigeon Lady. 

 

 

Central Park pops up in a few places throughout the movie, and I think it looks the same.

Throughout the film, McCallister is spotted across Manhattan's largest park. 

Yes, people still feed pigeons, and horse-drawn carriages still exist. 

As with any film shot decades ago, things will look different, but the crowds, and lack thereof, remain true.

I've explored areas of the 840-acre park that are both eerily quiet and swarmed with people. Overall, the film's depiction of the park is pretty accurate, based on my experience. 

No movie set in New York would be complete without a stop at Times Square.

McCallister makes his way to Times Square, which has some of the heaviest foot traffic in all of NYC.

The movie depicts Times Square as being relatively spacious and empty, which isn't the case today.

I find Times Square to typically be pure chaos with crowds of tourists, business people, and performers filling the streets.

I was surprised to see it so empty in the movie. 

One of the final scenes in the city features McCallister admiring the giant Christmas tree in Rockefeller Plaza.

At the end of the movie, McCallister reunites with his mother in the plaza, who flew to New York to search for her son.

In the movie, the plaza is entirely empty. 

In reality, Rockefeller Plaza would never be that empty during the holidays.

During my first winter in New York, I thought it would be fun to celebrate the holiday season by admiring the city's lights, window displays, and music, but I instantly regretted visiting Rockefeller Plaza.

The plaza was packed, and I remember having to push my way through the crowds to catch a glimpse of the tree. 

In fact, I doubt the plaza is ever as empty as it is in "Home Alone 2." 

While I'm glad I checked it off my bucket list, I have no desire to go back.

There are plenty of places I cherish from "Home Alone 2," and I'm happy to report that the movie's depiction of NYC still rings true today.

There's no place like NYC, especially during the holidays.

Watching "Home Alone 2: Lost in New York" is still a reminder of the magic the city has each winter, no matter how much has changed since the movie came out. 

• Starting next fall, you'll be able to watch ESPN without paying for other cable channels.
• ESPN hasn't said how much its new streaming service will cost. Analysts think it might go for about $25 a month.
• ESPN isn't sure how many takers the new service will have. It's hoping a new ad campaign will prime the pump.

If you pay attention to the media business, you know that ESPN is going to cut the cord next year. Disney's sports channel is finally going to offer TV viewers a chance to subscribe to ESPN as a stand-alone streaming service, like Netflix or Max.

But ESPN needs to reach a much bigger audience than people who pay attention to the media business if this thing is going to work.

So here's a new ad that's supposed to "set the stage for ESPN's upcoming chapter," per the company's press release. It's going to start airing on Christmas.

This one isn't for me. But I'm not a professional ad critic. And lots of times, the ad campaigns that ad critics swoon over don't really move the needle, so who knows?

But I am old, and I remember the 1990s, when ESPN's SportsCenter was the center of the sports universe. And the winking, mockumentary spots it ran all the time made you feel like you weren't wasting your time watching sports. Sports were fun, but also funny, and you were in on the joke, too.

Anyway. Things are different now. Let's look ahead to the future. Specifically next fall, when what ESPN refers to as "Flagship" is supposed to launch. (This is different than the ESPN+ service it already sells, which shows you stuff that's not on ESPN; Flagship will be a streamed version of all the stuff that's on "real" ESPN.) How much will it cost, and how many people will sign up?

The company has yet to reveal pricing, or audience projections, so outside estimates can vary wildly.

MoffettNathanson analyst Rob Fishman thinks ESPN will sell Flagship for about $25 a month, and projects modest pickup at first: 1 million paid subscribers by the end of 2026, 1.5 million in 2027, and 3 million by 2030.

Wells Fargo analyst Steven Cahall is way more bullish. He thinks ESPN will sell Flagship for $23 a month, and projects 12 million subscribers in 2027, and 17 million by 2030.

That big spread reflects the uncertainty I've heard coming from Disney and ESPN insiders themselves. They simply don't know how many people will want to pay for a service that gives them a lot of sports, but not all the sports on TV. And they also don't know if the people who do pay are going to be cable TV subscribers who are trading down from a big bundle of channels — or if they will be cord-cutters/cord-nevers who aren't paying for cable in the first place.

That uncertainty was part of the rationale for ESPN's participation in Venu, the "Hulu for sports" streaming service that was going to cost $43 a month, and would include ESPN and other Disney channels like ABC, as well as sports and non-sports programming from Fox and Warner Bros. Discovery. The thinking/hope was that between traditional TV, the stand-alone streamer, and the joint venture, ESPN would end up capturing whatever audience wanted to pay for sports, no matter how they wanted to pay for it.

Venu was supposed to have launched already, but has been held up by an antitrust legal challenge; a trial is supposed to get underway in early January. So if Disney and its partners win, ESPN could find itself launching two different streamers next year.

Most web browsers currently have a feature called “Do Not Track” hidden in settings. In the case of Mozilla’s Firefox browser, Windows Report has spotted a change in the upcoming version — the setting is gone. But this doesn’t mean what you think it means. As the name suggests, if you have “Do Not Track” […]

© 2024 TechCrunch. All rights reserved. For personal use only.

• Yup, it was right out of "Succession": Rupert Murdoch and his son Lachlan, fighting three other Murdoch children in court.
• Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch have lost that case — for now.
• That means Lachlan Murdoch will need to share control of his father's empire with three siblings when Rupert dies. But we don't know what that will actually mean.

Rupert Murdoch lost a legal case about the future of his media empire. What does that mean?

Real talk: It's too early to tell. At least one appeal is coming, so this could all shake out differently down the line.

But for now: It means that Murdoch's attempt to anoint his son Lachlan as the leader of his businesses once the elder Murdoch dies has been foiled.

And if that holds up, it means the future of Murdoch's empire — which includes Fox News and other Fox TV networks; The Wall Street Journal and the New York Post; and TV and print assets in the UK and Australia — will be that much messier when Murdoch, 93, is gone.

That's because — if the ruling holds up — Lachlan Murdoch will have to share control of the family business after his father's death with three of his siblings: James, Elisabeth, and Prudence. That was the heart of the dispute fought in a closed-door Nevada courtroom this fall. The New York Times got its hands on the sealed ruling, filed by a probate commissioner this weekend.

But beyond that, it's very hard to say what the news means. Rupert Murdoch has argued that it was important to make sure Lachlan Murdoch ran the family business the way Rupert Murdoch ran it. But that doesn't mean that Lachlan Murdoch would keep things untouched once his father died.

Maybe Lachlan would sell some assets that his father didn't want to sell for whatever reason. Maybe he wouldn't run Fox News — a core asset for the family business, in terms of both financial and political power — exactly the way his father did.

Similarly, the winners in the case — Lachlan's siblings James, Elisabeth, and Prudence — now have the ability to out-vote Lachlan. Which means, in theory, that they could force sales of things neither Lachlan nor Rupert wanted to part with. They could also, in theory, change the way Fox News operates.

But just because three members of the Murdoch clan fought their father's plans to make Lachlan more powerful than them doesn't mean they would always work together. The ruling just means they have a chance to weigh in.

Through a rep, James, Prudence, and Elisabeth applauded the decision and offered "hope that we can move beyond this litigation to focus on strengthening and rebuilding relationships among all family members." I also contacted Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch's rep for comment.

I realize that this is shrug-emoji of an explainer may be disappointing to some of you who would like a more definitive answer. Particularly those of you whose interest in the Murdoch family, and its twists and turns, relates primarily to the way it was partially fictionalized in "Succession."

But here's a little bit of a reward for dedicated watchers of HBO prestige dramas: It turns out that the court case, referred to by almost everyone as "straight out of Succession" was literally straight out of "Succession."

The Times reports that the Murdoch family fight kicked off in April 2023 as the HBO series was headed toward its conclusion.

Setting off these discussions was the episode of the HBO drama 'Succession,' the commissioner wrote, "where the patriarch of the family dies, leaving his family and business in chaos." The episode prompted Elisabeth's representative to the trust, Mark Devereux, to write a "'Succession' memo" intended to help avoid a real-life repeat.

Instead, that discussion eventually prompted Rupert Murdoch to amend the family trust later that year to give Lachlan full control.

Which led to this fall's court fight — but not the end of the story. Stay tuned.