News FOX selling out to Disney?

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.

 

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.

 

Disney has announced that they will be removing the Fox name from the movie studios, so 20th Century Fox will become 20th Century Studios, and Fox Searchlight will be Searchlight Studios. No decision has been made on whether or not the television studios will be changing their names.
I'm not surprised at all, I had assumed they'd be removing the Fox name as soon as they got them.

 

It makes sense from a branding perspective since Fox News and Fox Sports are still a thing.

 

20th Century Studios? Sounds pretty generic.

Kor

 

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.

 

The name changes work for me.

 

I'm surprised they didn't go back to the original name, I think Pictures sounds better than Studios.

 

20th Century Mouse

 

I don't know. "20th Century Studios" is so twentieth-century . . . .

 

Surprised they didn't go with "21st Century Studios" given the situation and timeframe of the acquisition.

 

The larger corporation has been called 21st Century Fox for some time, but the film studio kept its classic name because it's a recognized brand.

 

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.

 

I get the reasoning since no sane person would want to be associated with Fox News. It’s just sad.

 

I saw how one analyst gave that very reason, Murdoch is pretty toxic at this point.

 

I don't really see where it's sad. Disney isn't going to want another company's name on something they own now.

 

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.

 

Bob Iger shifts his CEO role to a different division. He's going to direct the company's creative content.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/25/disney-names-bob-chapek-next-ceo.html

He's still the chairman of the company and thus the head of the board, meaning the new CEO will still answer to him. Still, this traditionally means the new CEO will be more hands-on and Iger will be more hands-off.

 

I thought the choice of headlines for these articles were odd. "Bob Iger to step down as Disney CEO, effective immediately" clearly implies a sudden scandal and being forced out. That couldn't be further from the truth in this case. Clearly they were going for clickbait while being technically truthful.

 

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.