The Disney owns Fox thread

i called this awhile ago disney is only in the business of tentpole films - mcu,pixar,star wars,live action remakes of their animated films

sad since fox made really good non tentpole films like Widows,Bad Times at the El Royale,love simon,the hate u give,hidden figures,eddie the eagle,etc.
 
And you kinda answered your own questions as to why they got bought out.
 
I'd be surprised and sad if Blue Sky Studios get shut down, but its Disney's 3rd animation studio now and the one thats gonna make them less money in the future. I've seen every movie from Blue Sky except for Epic and its definitely nowhere to the iconicness of the films that Pixar and Wdas produced.

I wouldn't be surprised if Searchlight gets the boot as well. From what I'm sensing, they are streamlining the film department of fox. Marvel characters goes to Marvel Stud10s. And future live action Fox movies would just come from 1 division, which is just gonna be 20th Century Fox. The thing is they don't need separate divisions to possibly earn top notch / award winning films, if they got the right people. As much as people mentioned the good films fox had with Searchlight / Fox 2000, Fox still had many stinkers from Fox 2000, Blue Sky and 20th Century Fox itself. I hope this signals quality over quantity of films released per year in the new Fox and I'd be interesting which movie franchises from Fox would be revived.
 
Last edited:
i called this awhile ago disney is only in the business of tentpole films - mcu,pixar,star wars,live action remakes of their animated films

sad since fox made really good non tentpole films like Widows,Bad Times at the El Royale,love simon,the hate u give,hidden figures,eddie the eagle,etc.

These type of films have no value on Hulu? Why pay 71 billion just to gut EVERYTHING? Mainly for old film and TV? The could have spent 5% of what they did and gotten the same results.
 
They aren't gutting everything though. Some of the people fired are probably getting another job at fox, who knows. Companies streamline things when they just acquired a big company, nothing new. And we don't know if the films that fox 2000 used to make, won't be seen in the Disney-Fox era in the future.
 
They aren't gutting everything though. Some of the people fired are probably getting another in fox, who knows. Companies streamline things when they just acquired a big company. And we don't know if the films that fox 2000 used to make, won't be seen in the Disney-Fox era in the future.

I know they aren't. I was asking the poster the logic of spending 71 billion dollars to only make tentpoles? It's certainly not just for old content. They are paying for the engine of content creation that is 21 Century Fox. Fox Searchlight can easily expand the range of it's budgets and take on Fox 2000's role. Searchlight, FX, 20th Century Fox will all be key players in creating content for Disney in theaters and eventually onto TV and (more importantly) streaming platforms. Hulu and + will have a lot of crossover subs but they will also serve 2 completely different demos. Iger has said MANY times that Netflix is the model, ie, something for everyone.
 
Last edited:
I doubt Disney would only make tentpole films with Fox. Disney still releases Disney Nature films and those arent tentpole movies. I don't think Fx produces movies, they are on the Tv side.

Also, I don't really think it's bad news if we get fewer fox movies. I've seen a lot of movies from Fox and a lot of them sucked or had great concept but just couldn't meet its potential that they ended as average. Assassin's Creed, Red Sparrow, Maze Runner, Alita, Dragonball, Orient Express, Percy Jackson and oh yeah Fantastic Four. Even the good ones, weren't seen by a lot of people because Fox wasn't great when it came to marketing.
 
I doubt Disney would only make tentpole films with Fox. Disney still releases Disney Nature films and those arent tentpole movies. I don't think Fx produces movies, they are on the Tv side.

Also, I don't really think it's bad news if we get fewer fox movies. I've seen a lot of movies from Fox and a lot of them sucked or had great concept but just couldn't meet its potential that they ended as average. Assassin's Creed, Red Sparrow, Maze Runner, Alita, Dragonball, Orient Express, Percy Jackson and oh yeah Fantastic Four. Even the good ones, weren't seen by a lot of people because Fox wasn't great when it came to marketing.

Unfortunately we'll get less theatrical releases, but that's not to say we won't get a number of film productions made for streaming (like Netflix). On the TV side, I'd expect an expansion of Fox related material.
 
Unfortunately we'll get less theatrical releases, but that's not to say we won't get a number of film productions made for streaming (like Netflix). On the TV side, I'd expect an expansion of Fox related material.
Have to think some of the smaller releases will just go on Disney+ instead of being released theatrically.
 
Unfortunately we'll get less theatrical releases, but that's not to say we won't get a number of film productions made for streaming (like Netflix). On the TV side, I'd expect an expansion of Fox related material.
I don't think its unfortunate if Fox turns to be more quality over quantity, this time around. Again, every year they have more stinkers than good films.
 
Have to think some of the smaller releases will just go on Disney+ instead of being released theatrically.

And really, why would this be a bad thing? A mid budget drama or comedy released via streaming is going to get *more* exposure than a limited indie-run theatrical release, most likely. Studios don't produce as many mid-budget dramas anymore, because people largely don't watch them, not in theaters.
 
And you kinda answered your own questions as to why they got bought out.

No they got bought out because Rupert Murdoch didn't want to compete in the next age of entertainment media (streaming). They were actually a healthy movie studio--unlike Paramount and Sony/Columbia, which is troubling since they'll be next I suppose--hence being able to have a bidding war.

This is why some folks preferred the idea of a Silicon Valley company or even Comcast buying Fox: Disney would strip-mine a studio that actually produces a variety of cinema for more than just fanboy and mass-family entertainment tastes. This week the first bit of dynamite to open the mine went off.
 
Disney would strip-mine a studio that actually produces a variety of cinema for more than just fanboy and mass-family entertainment tastes. This week the first bit of dynamite to open the mine went off.
You say that as if it's a bad thing. They are in the business entertainment after all.

Sorry not sorry that Disney releases movies that people actually watch. And I seriously doubt Fox would have been better off with Comcast who already owns Universal.
 
You say that as if it's a bad thing. They are in the business entertainment after all.

Sorry not sorry that Disney releases movies that people actually watch. And I seriously doubt Fox would have been better off with Comcast who already owns Universal.

Sometimes it's nice when some studios also remember film can be just as much an art form as a business. Fox also was in the business of entertainment (and honestly not as good at making blockbusters as Disney, clearly), but your eagerness to trade in films like Widows, Hidden Figures, The Shape of Water, Three Billboards, and The Favourite (all of which made profits, with Hidden Figures being a true hit) for more blockbusters is... something.

Just because industry upheaval is inevitable doesn't mean we should celebrate seeing the theatrical experience pushed further in a race to the lowest common denominator.
 
No they got bought out because Rupert Murdoch didn't want to compete in the next age of entertainment media (streaming). They were actually a healthy movie studio--unlike Paramount and Sony/Columbia, which is troubling since they'll be next I suppose--hence being able to have a bidding war.

This is why some folks preferred the idea of a Silicon Valley company or even Comcast buying Fox: Disney would strip-mine a studio that actually produces a variety of cinema for more than just fanboy and mass-family entertainment tastes. This week the first bit of dynamite to open the mine went off.

That's not Disney's fault.
 
Yep, fat that includes making mid-budget (therefore higher than most Fox Searchlight fare) films that appeal to more than just fanboys like Life of Pi, Hidden Figures, Fight Club back in the day, or recently Love, Simon and The Hate U Give.

Sorry, this leaves a bad taste of fat or otherwise. The writing is on the wall that they're going to kill Fox's mid-budget productions for adults like they did for themselves when they more or less shuttered Touchstone Pictures. My real question mark is what they do with Fox Searchlight. Or perhaps more apt, when they do in Fox Searchlight. It won't be this year.


Fox isnt the only studio and distributor that can make and release smaller scale films that appeal to more than just fanboys. If Disney doesnt want to release a small scale film through Fox the property can be taken to another distributor.

There is a much bigger real problem caused by this merger. Fox's catalogue of older films. Fox would actually restore and release their catalogue films on bluray and UHD. Disney has for over a decade shown very little interest in large chunks of their catalogue.

So expect a lot of Fox catalogue blurays to go out of production and remain out of production. And expect Disney/Fox to stop regular catalogue releases on bluray and UHD. Thankfully Alien is getting a UHD release next month, but I doubt we'll get Aliens on UHD anytime soon if ever.
 
People forget that other studios still exist. So what if Disney prioritizes movies that people/families would watch. WB, Sony, Universal, Lionsgate and Paramount are still around. Amazon and Netflix are also making movies. Why don't they create movies that Disney won't dare to make, the entertainment industry would continue without Fox, and creativity doesn't stop at Disneyand the people fired by Fox would have just to look somewhere else (another studio) to pursue their filmmaking dreams. Its really not the end of the world.
 
Other.... studios? Is there such a thing?
 
I suppose that part of the deal includes the rights to the first Star Wars movie which I seem to recall Fox held on to when they made the SW deal several years ago.

Once the last film in the Skywalker saga is released this December, I wonder if Disney won't finally release a fully restored version of the original unedited 1977 movie as well as non-Special Edition versions of the other two movies in the original trilogy in a super nine-movie ultra combo pack. There's $$$$$ to be made.
 
"Other studios." There were only six major studios (7 if you count Lionsgate) that had the apparatus for wide theatrical distribution and marketing, which allows the type of market penetration where films can be visible to average moviegoers. In other words, there were only a few precious avenues if you wanted your English-language movie to be seen by a lot of people in theaters. Now there's only five.

And the obvious next question is who's next? No major corporation likes competition and if they can't have a monopoly, they are content with a small oligarchy, something Disney is clearly interested in. WB and Universal are too big (and part of even bigger media empires) to be consumed, but Paramount, Sony/Columbia/Lionsgate?

I mean this is such a strange discussion, because when people are saying "why's a lack of competition and the death of the theatrical experience a bad thing?" there's not much one can say but state the obvious. But go on, enjoy the complete hegemonization of cinema.

tumblr_pmqpchpRHF1qc9dlro2_r1_500.gif
 
Fox isnt the only studio and distributor that can make and release smaller scale films that appeal to more than just fanboys. If Disney doesnt want to release a small scale film through Fox the property can be taken to another distributor.

There is a much bigger real problem caused by this merger. Fox's catalogue of older films. Fox would actually restore and release their catalogue films on bluray and UHD. Disney has for over a decade shown very little interest in large chunks of their catalogue.

So expect a lot of Fox catalogue blurays to go out of production and remain out of production. And expect Disney/Fox to stop regular catalogue releases on bluray and UHD. Thankfully Alien is getting a UHD release next month, but I doubt we'll get Aliens on UHD anytime soon if ever.

Oh, really good point. I didn't even think about that. I'll add that I know they'll put movies they think are "on-brand" on Disney+ (example: Sound of Music.). But what about their catalog of classic films that are not necessarily for a family audience like All About Eve and All That Jazz? Do they put them on Hulu or just leave them to waste because they're not IP (like Alien or Predator would theoretically go to Hulu) and they're not family friendly.
 
"Other studios." There were only six major studios (7 if you count Lionsgate) that had the apparatus for wide theatrical distribution and marketing, which allows the type of market penetration where films can be visible to average moviegoers. In other words, there were only a few precious avenues if you wanted your English-language movie to be seen by a lot of people in theaters. Now there's only five.

And the obvious next question is who's next? No major corporation likes competition and if they can't have a monopoly, they are content with a small oligarchy, something Disney is clearly interested in. WB and Universal are too big (and part of even bigger media empires) to be consumed, but Paramount, Sony/Columbia/Lionsgate?

I mean this is such a strange discussion, because when people are saying "why's a lack of competition and the death of the theatrical experience a bad thing?" there's not much one can say but state the obvious. But go on, enjoy the complete hegemonization of cinema.

tumblr_pmqpchpRHF1qc9dlro2_r1_500.gif

For all Disney's faults, they may be the last major entertainment company still committed to theatrical releases. AT&T and Comcast, companies whose primary revenue stream comes from selling access to their pipes, are not so surprisingly looking to contract the theatrical release window. And the FAANGs investing heavily in content would prefer you send them a monthly credit card payment rather than sit in front of a communal screen with a bag of popcorn.
Studios Expected to Push for Early Home Release in 2019 (EXCLUSIVE)

It's hard to make the case that niche theatrical product is an attractive business when Disney has dominated the BO by ignoring it. I think Horn and his team will continue to invest in Spotlight for the near future, but it's imperative for those who want to see small scale movies on the big screen to vote with their wallets.
 
Right now Disney basically is the sole reason to go to a movie theatre considering the properties they own. And maybe WB on occasion.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"