21st Century Fox Studio Sold To Disney! Sale Finalized See Post #368 (1 Viewer)

[Sean Bryan]

I wouldn’t bet on it being 5 years before they do anything with the X-Men. I would bet on it being a while though.

Feige stating that they started working on a 5 year plan doesn’t mean that it was all set in stone or that the X-Men (or Mutants) can’t show up for at least 5 years. But having started working on that before the return of these characters became official means that they would be used later rather than sooner. Based on their past examples, their plans are more fluid the further out they go.

I do agree that they should take their time and not rush things. But I do expect that they will start doing “something” with Mutants within the next maybe 2-3 years.

If they do plan on integrating the X-Men into the prime MCU, they have to use some sort of creative slant on the material to explain why society hasn’t been aware of them. If so, I wouldn’t be surprised if they lay the groundwork for something like that over a few unrelated MCU movies.

But I’d hope the see Marvel’s Fantastic Four and Doom arrive in the MCU before the next iteration of the X-Men gets going.

 

[Sam Favate]

There will undoubtedly be a Deadpool movie in less than 5 years. My guess is that it stays under the Fox banner, so as not to violate the no R-rated films decree for Marvel.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I cannot imagine Deadpool appearing in the MCU. Putting aside the rating issue, Marvel Studios have spent over a decade creating a world that many people are able to suspend their disbelief to immerse themselves in. They’ve done all this work to prove that films with comic book origins can be both commercially and critically successful, even banning a Best Picture nomination for one of their efforts. They’ve gotten people to care deeply for the characters and to be invested in their plights - to the point that they were able to make a film where their heroes lost, having that being the ending note, and wound up with the biggest opening weekend of all time.

Deadpool trivializes everything. Deadpool eagerly breaks the fourth wall and points out how unreal all of this is, how silly it is, and how inconsequential it all is.

If Deadpool breaks the MCU’s fourth wall, I fear something else may break with it that can never be undone - the ability to take the MCU seriously.

I do not believe that Marvel would risk that by inserting Deadpool into the MCU.

 

[Jeff Adkins]

But I’d hope the see Marvel’s Fantastic Four and Doom arrive in the MCU before the next iteration of the X-Men gets going.

I think that's far more likely. The comic book fans say those Fantastic Four comics are some of the best and that they've never had a proper film adaptation. The films themselves don't seem to have much of a following (with the exception of the unreleased Corman version). I think Marvel Studios could finally do these characters justice. Enough time has passed since the last failed reboot that by the time a film would be made, I think the demand would be huge.

 

[BobO'Link]

Avatar is the top grossing film of all time...

Not when adjusting for inflation. The king is still Gone with the Wind and the new *unadjusted* king is Star Wars: The Force Awakens:

From Box Office Mojo (unadjusted box office is the non-bolded amount - chart here):

1 Gone with the Wind MGM $1,826,639,100 $200,852,579 1939^
2 Star Wars Fox $1,608,419,900 $460,998,007 1977^
3 The Sound of Music Fox $1,286,641,000 $159,287,539 1965^
4 E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial Uni. $1,280,944,600 $435,110,554 1982^
5 Titanic Par. $1,224,014,800 $659,363,944 1997^
6 The Ten Commandments Par. $1,182,930,000 $65,500,000 1956
7 Jaws Uni. $1,156,551,700 $260,000,000 1975
8 Doctor Zhivago MGM $1,120,943,200 $111,721,910 1965
9 The Exorcist WB $998,710,500 $232,906,145 1973^
10 Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs Dis. $984,270,000 $184,925,486 1937^
11 Star Wars: The Force Awakens BV $976,279,300 $936,662,225 2015
12 101 Dalmatians Dis. $902,252,800 $144,880,014 1961^
13 The Empire Strikes Back Fox $886,571,200 $290,475,067 1980^
14 Ben-Hur MGM $884,940,000 $74,000,000 1959
15 Avatar Fox $878,705,500 $760,507,625 2009^

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

I'm hearing from multiple sources that Fox has now adopted Disney's policy of not allowing independent theaters to book its catalog titles for repertory screenings. Apparently the goal is to make Disney+ the exclusive place to see many of these titles going forward. Prior commitments are being honored, but nothing else.

 

[Edwin-S]

Just another reason why concentration of ownership is a bad idea.

 

[Worth]

Not when adjusting for inflation. The king is still Gone with the Wind and the new *unadjusted* king is Star Wars: The Force Awakens...

It's impossible to make an exact comparison, as neither adjusted or unadjusted figures tell the whole story. The way people see movies has changed dramatically in the last few decades. If you wanted to see Gone with the Wind at any point between it's initial release and the 1980s, you pretty much had to see it in the theatre. That, or the occasional television airing.

With Avatar or Force Awakens, you might have seen it in the theatre, or waited a few months to see it on home video, or waited another few months to see it on a movie channel or Netflix. At the same time, there are so many other forms of media and entertainment fighting for our attention these days than there were in 1939, or even 1989.

 

[Malcolm R]

I didn't realize enough people attended repertory screenings to make a dent in Disney's streaming numbers. I guess they're more popular than I thought.

 

[Mysto]

It's impossible to make an exact comparison, as neither adjusted or unadjusted figures tell the whole story. The way people see movies has changed dramatically in the last few decades. If you wanted to see Gone with the Wind at any point between it's initial release and the 1980s, you pretty much had to see it in the theatre. That, or the occasional television airing.

With Avatar or Force Awakens, you might have seen it in the theatre, or waited a few months to see it on home video, or waited another few months to see it on a movie channel or Netflix. At the same time, there are so many other forms of media and entertainment fighting for our attention these days than there were in 1939, or even 1989.

It's true that we have more forms of entertainment but the US population has almost tripled as well.
But you are right - it is difficult to make exact comparisons. OTOH dollars are dollars (adjusted of course).

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I didn't realize enough people attended repertory screenings to make a dent in Disney's streaming numbers. I guess they're more popular than I thought.

I don't think they are. I think it's probably more of a matter of it not being worth the effort for them.

For better or worse, Disney is only interested in big. A single theater showing a 50 year old film to an audience of a dozen people isn't something that will justify them getting out of bed in the morning. They have probably made a business decision that it's not worth the effort for them to staff a division to work on providing DCPs and film prints when there's a minuscule audience that pays for it.

I used to be a big repertory filmgoer, and in NYC, we have some good theaters dedicated to it. The Film Forum is perhaps the most popular venue for these type of screenings. After their latest renovation, their largest auditorium now holds about 100 people - down from about 200. (Yes, they actually reduced the seating count, because their audience was dwindling, and the number one feedback item from patrons was that they wanted larger, more comfortable seats to even consider going out in the first place. And, for better or worse, the reduced seating capacity still meets and exceeds their needs at most showings. In general, people are less interested in paying money to go out when they can have the same experience at home, usually without paying. Repertory was a decent business back when that was the only way to see an old film. Now that you can watch them at home easily, it changes the level of interest people have. I doubt the first-run theatrical business would be doing what it's doing today if you could watch the latest Avengers movie at home at the same moment it was opening in theaters.) Even with a sold out show - that's just not a lot of money. The cost of shipping a film print to NYC and back is probably more than what a sold out show could gross.

Note that the rumor doesn't say that Disney is shutting down all repertory, just that they're going to stop providing repertory to independent theaters. I imagine that we'll still see Disney/Fox titles as part of Fathom events - Fathom is a joint venture owned by the major U.S. theater chains to program repertory and special events. I think Disney would support showing their films through Fathom when they can be booked in major theaters. I just don't think they want to worry about staffing a department that would be high effort and low yield, which is entirely consistent with Disney's tentpole-only "go big or go home" strategy.

The simple fact is that the media landscape is changing dramatically, and repertory isn't very relevant in an era when people can view almost anything they want virtually for free at the touch of a button at home. I can simultaneously mourn the passing of a way of life and of experiencing movies the way I did growing up, while also acknowledging that this is a natural evolution that is being fueled by changing consumer habits. If consumers wanted to spend $15 to see old movies in theaters en masse to a profitable degree, Disney and every other company would expand to accommodate those demands.

 

[Edwin-S]

Everything to wipe out as many small independently owned theatres as possible. These megacorps all suck.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Everything to wipe out as many small independently owned theatres as possible. These megacorps all suck.

You're right, that must be it. It's not that Disney isn't interested in expending time or effort for things that won't turn them a profit. They're trying to put businesses that have nothing to do with them out of a job. Sure.

 

[Edwin-S]

If Disney, when they were small, had been treated the way they are treating small markets now then they would have been in bankruptcy a long time ago. And I beg to differ that licencing films to independent theatres has nothing to do with them because the number of zeroes behind the first digit isn't big enough. They are still a studio in the business of putting their films into as many markets as possible.

This shit reminds me of the railway company I worked for. They went around telling small mills to use trucks because the volume of business being generated wasn't enough for their vaunted bottom line. Then the bottom dropped out and they actually assigned someone to go around to the mills that they had told to fuck off and were begging them for their business back, no matter how small the volume was. I can only hope what goes around comes around and Iger's empire implodes when people finally get tired of his megadollar blockbusters.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I don't know why I keep getting on this merry-go-round with you, because you have an immovable viewpoint that Disney is entirely motivated by being evil, and that the only solution is for them to wither and die.

Even the way you refer to it as "Iger's empire" - it's not. Disney is a publicly traded corporation with a responsibility to its shareholders to maximize profit. The board of directors at Disney have hired Robert Iger to do a job; he is doing his job as his supervisors require him to do it. No different than the rest of us who work for a boss, and who must do what our bosses ask. Yes, his position is more visible and higher up the food chain, but at the end of the day, he's an employee there to do a job.

Robert Iger did not singlehandedly change the media landscape. Robert Iger did not invent streaming or subscription services. Robert Iger did not brainwash an entire generation of media consumers into preferring subscription packages over purchasing individual titles. Robert Iger did not brainwash an entire generation of moviegoers to prefer to see big event movies in theaters while simultaneously preferring to watch everything else at home.

Businesses change and evolve, and the media business is no exception.

What would be bad is if Disney or any other media company continued to do business as if it were 20, 50, or 100 years ago. Remember MGM? They basically don't exist anymore, because they could only do business as if it was still the 1990s. Remember Paramount? They're in last place and struggling to survive because until about five minutes ago, they were acting as if the media landscape was still the same as it was in 2003. Companies that don't evolve to meet consumer needs and preferences won't survive because consumers have lost interest in what they're offering. It's as simple as that.

 

[Jason_V]

I can only hope what goes around comes around and Iger's empire implodes when people finally get tired of his megadollar blockbusters.

And Universal's and Paramount's and Lionsgate's and everyone else's. If the big blockbusters are the only things bringing audiences to the theater (there is proof that is true), then why shouldn't the studios tilt their release slates to that kind of movie? If Disney or any other company wants to control their library by not licensing to small theaters, it's their property, isn't it?

And while we're at it, let's blame Iger for HBO having a megadollar blockbuster in Game of Thrones. And NBC/Warner for the megadollar blockbuster Friends and West Wing. What else can we blame him for? Climate change? The stock market? Inflation?

 

[RobertSiegel]

One thing I learned is that Fox actually had plans to do a special video release for The Sound of Music this past March for its 55th anniversary. Fox had never missed an anniversary of this movie going way back, and doing something special every 5 years. Then Disney purchased Fox and then The Sound of Music appeared as the ONLY movie from Fox on their streaming service on day 1. Sadly, I think there might have been a remaster of this movie as most people know the colors on the blu-ray version which has been used since the 45th anniversary are way off and completely different than any previous release, home video or theatrical. and miles away from the one Robert Wise approved for the laserdisc box set. Now it has way too many browns and so much of the color has changed, I can't imagine where they got the source to work with that looks like it does now. I have talked to many projectionists who are in love with this movie and they said in no way do the colors represent the 70mm prints or even the Cinemascope. So I am sad to learn that any possibility of the color being corrected on the film might now be down the tubes. I do see that Schawn Belston was named Senior Vice President of Mastering at the Walt Disney Company.

 

[RBailey]

Whenever I run across any 20th Century Fox movie I'm even remotely interested in, I buy it. At a second hand store the other day, I bought THE GREAT AMERICAN BROADCAST w/Alice Faye, THE GENTLEMAN FROM NATCHEZ w/Dale Robertson and THE GREAT PROFILE w/John Barrymore. Who knows if any titles like this will be available again. Also, TCM ran THE CRAZY WORLD OF JULIUS VROODER the other night. It's a Fox film I've wanted to see since 1974. It never ran anywhere near me and there's never been any kind of VHS or disc release. A nice '70s movie with Timothy Bottoms, Barbara Hershey (then billed as Barbara Seagull) and long-time director George Marshall also in the cast along with a killer's row of great 70s character actors.