• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

News FOX selling out to Disney?

JD said:
Apparently Disney is refusing to let theaters show old Fox movies, like Alien or The Fly. It appears to be connected to how much the theaters show new Disney and Fox movies.
This seems weird to me, I don't understand why it would be a problem. They own the movies, so it seems to me like they are just passing up a decent source of more money.
Click to expand...
Its being dealt with on a case by case basis, as well as the fact that they are looking at theaters who run films in their first run, and that Disney doesn't want to also run older showings too.

It's still odd, but not nearly as simply as it sounds at first blush.
 
Kor said:
20th Century Studios? Sounds pretty generic.
Click to expand...

Ironically, the studio was originally called Twentieth Century Pictures up until its merger with Fox Film in 1935, at which point it became the 20th Century-Fox Film Corporation. (It didn't drop the hyphen until Rupert Murdoch acquired it in 1981.) Now another merger has restored it to (nearly) its original name.
 
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
From 34:40 on they discuss the "rebranding", and Dan Murrell gives a very interesting and educating history lesson on the man behind the Fox name. An important aspect of this whole situation, I feel.
 
JD said:
I don't really see where it's sad. Disney isn't going to want another company's name on something they own now.
Click to expand...

Marvel still has its name. So do Pixar and Lucasfilm. Part of the reason Disney acquires all these companies is to diversify, to attract a wider audience by acquiring things that already have their own distinct audiences and take advantage of their existing name recognition.

Indeed, sometimes they've found the Disney name to be an impediment and tried to downplay it. Decades ago they tried to diversify into more adult-skewing, PG movies like The Black Hole, TRON, Something Wicked This Way Comes, etc., but audiences were confused by the Disney name on films that weren't kid-friendly, so Disney created the Touchstone Pictures imprint to release those films under so they wouldn't be saddled with the "kids' movie" stigma.

Anyway, they're still keeping 2/3 of the 20th Century Fox name on 20th Century Studios, and keeping the Searchlight imprint around, just not as Fox Searchlight. They aren't calling them 20th Century Disney or Disney Searchlight. They're letting them continue to exist as separate brands, even without the Fox part.
 
Foxhot said:
Back then you could have PG-13 level action in many PG films. Live-action wise, PG's almost nonexistent on the popular scale now and PG-13 is the norm.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the G rating used to be pretty much like what PG is now used to mean (give or take the odd cuss word), and the PG rating was like the modern PG-13 (but permitting more nudity, oddly). Over the decades, so many filmmakers added stray expletives to turn G-rated films into PG that it ended up shifting the meaning of "PG" more and more into G territory, which required introducing PG-13 to clarify things, and that pretty much took the place of PG -- and also stretched a lot of the way into R territory because of filmmakers doing small cuts to get PG-13 ratings for what would otherwise be R. People have gamed the system so much to get the "desired" rating that the ratings are no longer very informative, especially when trying to assess an older movie.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top