1. Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
    Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.You can use your Twitter or Facebook account to sign up, or register directly.
    Dismiss Notice

Umm 21st Century Fox Purchase?

Discussion in 'Disney Co News & Discussion' started by rudyjr13, Nov 6, 2017.

  1. CherylM

    CherylM Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2015
    Messages:
    1,013
    Likes Received:
    1,671
    Yeah, I know about Deadpool and Fox...it's a shame the characters are divided up the way they are and hopefully this purchase goes through to straighten at least a big chunk of that all out. My husband is a huge Marvel Comics fan, so to us, Marvel is Marvel is Marvel, lol...it was just easy to explain how HUGE Disney is to my son by using that as an example. I find it interesting that all the movies with Marvel characters are released under the Marvel Studios banner and that the only way to really tell the difference in who made them is by watching and paying attention to all of the opening and end credits - I'm sure for the average viewer, it seems like they're all under one company/studio.

    *If* I were in charge and the purchase went through, I would probably keep Marvel, Lucasfilm, and Pixar separate, with two more divisions - a Disney studio for "family" films (not necessarily cartoons/animated, but it could include those that don't necessarily jive with Pixar), and another one for everything else.
     
    David2319 likes this.
  2. MisterPenguin

    MisterPenguin Premium Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2016
    Messages:
    5,091
    Likes Received:
    20,458
    There's another way: All the Marvel superhero movies that have no humor (excepting Deadpool) or are without any sense of joy or wonderment (excepting two Spider-Man films) were done outside the Disney umbrella.
     
    CherylM likes this.
  3. CherylM

    CherylM Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2015
    Messages:
    1,013
    Likes Received:
    1,671
    HA! NO KIDDING!!! My husband is beside himself that I'm such a huge fan and that I became one so quickly. We've been together since 1991, and for a large majority of that time I had next to zero interest because I don't enjoy reading in the form of graphic novels/comics. I would catch an animated series show once in awhile, but I wasn't dedicated to them like he was. I have nothing against comics and definitely recognize them as their own art form, they're just not my bag for reading is all.

    Needless to say, hubby has been pretty happy every time he comes home and I share big Marvel news with him. ;)
     
    MisterPenguin likes this.
  4. the.dreamfinder

    the.dreamfinder Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2011
    Messages:
    4,872
    Likes Received:
    15,161
    Where to start, where to start...

    Disney would be acquired by a larger company.
    Size isn’t the issue I have with this deal, it’s focus. If Disney plopped down $30 billion to buy Oriental Land, I’d be fine with that. I’m not some nostalgic floosie who wants the company to be whittle Walt Disney Productions because everything they did was perfect, it wasn’t. The Walt Disney part of the business hasn’t grown organically or improved all that much in the Iger years. In terms of new business ventures, It’s just Shanghai Disney and the streaming service, which will be like HBO Now to HBO via cable, so more of a replacement to secure existing revenue streams. Michael Eisner opened up new lines of business for Disney like the Disney Store and the cruise lines and grew nascent efforts like the Disney Channel or Touchstone. TWDC won’t be able to give Disney, or Star Wars or Marvel for that matter, the focus and resources to grow. A big, sprawling, and unfocused conglomerate can easily fall apart.

    And maybe someone would come in and split that company apart or buy it whole. Amazon or Verizon perhaps?:rolleyes:

    A Different Experience
    But will they, really?

    Regardless of your age, the relationship Disney forms with each generation basically is the same. They are the stories that absorb us in our most formative years. Some are passed down to us from our parents and grandparents, from “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs” and “Pinocchio” to “Cinderella”, “Peter Pan”, and “20,000 Leagues Under the Sea” and so on. The new stuff, when it’s truly great, forms an impression on us for the rest of our lives. It enchants, excites and inspires us. Then we get to share it with our kids and grand kids and see them discover it all over again through their eyes.

    But that’s just part of it. To the public, Disney is a single entity. The Walt Disney Company no longer operates with this in mind. Current senior management tolerates a Disney organization that varies drastically in quality of output and awareness of other divisions’ efforts. Classic one hand not knowing what the other is doing. It’s all Disney and it’s not all good.

    Perhaps Disney, under Iger, has been running in place for the past twelve years. That Disney was so far ahead that it looks that way to many still. Easy to miss that fact as time marches on.
     
    Last edited: Nov 9, 2017
    2351metalcloud, ULPO46 and lazyboy97o like this.
  5. David2319

    David2319 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2015
    Messages:
    3,664
    Likes Received:
    9,722
    Definitely. Disney sort of has
    • Walt Disney Animation Studios
    • Disney (Live-Action)... (Pirates, Tomorrowland, Remakes, etc.)
    • Disney * Pixar
    Under the direct 'Disney' name.
    • Lucasfilm
    • Marvel
    These two subsidiaries are highly publicized by Disney (and is universal knowledge), and are recognized by Disney, but are kept separate from the Disney label to give them creative control, and a sense of independence.
    • Disney Toon Studios
    It uses the Disney name, but with the exception of that, this to be sort of how I'd expect BlueSky to work, lower budget films, with generally lower quality, but I expect BlueSky to be between Toon Studios & Pixar in terms of content & quality. And I'd expect BlueSky to not use the Disney name, although you never know.
    • Touchstone
    • Hollywood Pictures
    These two are what Disney sort of does not associate the Disney name with whatsoever. Occasionally it happens, like The Nightmare Before Christmas or Who Framed Roger Rabbit, but as a whole these films are viewed as a separate entity.
    20th Century Fox does not have a 'under the Fox name' category. Instead, they just make different films with different subsidiaries under the Fox name, which is essentially meaningless. There are so many different factors in this like FOX TV, but simply focusing on films..
    20th Century Fox
    • BlueSky
    My guess is that Bluesky becomes the 'in-between' animation studios for Toon and Pixar, but I'd again, expect it to NOT use the Disney name. So it's in the same category as Lucasfilm & Marvel.
    • 20th Century Fox
    The films like Titanic and Anastasia my guess will partly be reviewed individually on what line of stuff they move to. My guess is the Fox name A. gets dissolved completely and a new company with most of the classic films like Titanic, The Sound of Music, etc. go to, and others like Anastasia go under the Disney name or maybe even Bluesky. We shall see though.
    • Fox's Franchises (for argument's sake)
    Planet of The Apes, Avatar, Alien, etc. should probably be merged with the 'Disney Live Action' name unless they have a clear vision. for it as a separate company like Marvel Studios.
    • Fox Searchlight
    With the distribution rights that Disney will have, a massive amount of critically acclaimed films will be able to be streamed on Disney's streaming network. My guess is this stays the same or gains a new name. The connections with talent and quantity of high-quality films will give Disney an outstanding line-up. These films will mostly be viewed as separate from the 'Disney' name I'd assume.


    Obviously, Fox Media (Simpsons etc.), FX, Nat GEO, and especially Sky News are among the deciding factors in this, but just focusing on the movie business this is the way I see it.
     
    2351metalcloud and CherylM like this.
  6. CherylM

    CherylM Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2015
    Messages:
    1,013
    Likes Received:
    1,671
    The smartest thing Disney did in regards to the Marvel films is hand them over to someone who'd dreamed of making Marvel films for basically his entire life. THAT is what they need to do for each studio, the resorts/parks, the cruise lines, the stores, etc.

    Couldn't agree with this more. My boys are 6 and 11, and they've seen every classic Disney animated film (and a ton of the live-actions). My youngest, especially, loves the classics. He'd opt for Snow White or Dumbo over many of the newer films. I'm sure that will change as he gets older (as it did for my older son), but they will always hold a special place in his heart, just like they do for his brother.

    Iger needs to realize that all these different parts of the company serve VERY different purposes, and that quality is enormously important in each one. Quality needs to be not only be raised back to what it used to be (in terms of the parks and stores), but it should be consistent as well. What we're seeing in the stores and parks/resorts is all over the place.
     
  7. CherylM

    CherylM Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2015
    Messages:
    1,013
    Likes Received:
    1,671
    Yeah...that's a great big tangled mess of studios/companies...there would definitely need to be some sorting out and simplification going on.
     
    David2319 likes this.
  8. David2319

    David2319 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2015
    Messages:
    3,664
    Likes Received:
    9,722
    Exactly. The sheer volume would be unmatched, and Disney already is the #1 movie studio in the world, but paired with Fox it should be unstoppable for quite a while. Restructuring/organizing is key to its success though. And of course, a clear focus & direction.
     
    CherylM likes this.
  9. CherylM

    CherylM Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2015
    Messages:
    1,013
    Likes Received:
    1,671
    YES. And good leadership for each one.
     
    David2319 likes this.
  10. the.dreamfinder

    the.dreamfinder Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2011
    Messages:
    4,872
    Likes Received:
    15,161
    Fox approached Disney to sell. What does that say about Disney? Are other companies coming to Disney as well and we only know about these discussions?
     
  11. Luigi

    Luigi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2006
    Messages:
    215
    Likes Received:
    317
    Seriously? Was my sarcasm not dripping enough from my post for you? The fact I choose three specific IPs that he did not create?
    This board sometimes...I don't know.
     
  12. CherylM

    CherylM Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2015
    Messages:
    1,013
    Likes Received:
    1,671
    Sorry, lol. My bad - I was way past tired and my brain tends to go literal.
     
    Luigi likes this.
  13. AnotherDayAnotherDollar

    AnotherDayAnotherDollar New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2016
    Messages:
    12
    Likes Received:
    9
    Just name it 20th Century Film Corporation, as it was known until 1985. Fold Touchstone and whatever else they have being underutilized under this new banner. Or name it something else as we are in the 21st Century now. Disney will certainly remove the "Fox" name from the label, but keep the fanfare.

    The most underated part of the deal is Lightstorm and its deal with Fox. If they would come as an acquired company as well (since Fox doesn't own them) it would be a huge asset, but even if Fox has rights of first refusal for Lighbox's upcoming film, that will give them a huge bonus.
     
  14. AnotherDayAnotherDollar

    AnotherDayAnotherDollar New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2016
    Messages:
    12
    Likes Received:
    9
    Sure, someone will split the company like when a judge forced Microsoft to split because they had 95% marketshare and was hurting consumers. Remember that? Or when they split amazon up? Or apple? Or Google? Or Comcast? Except none of that happened. Disney could buy Fox, WB, and Universal Studios and the only case the DOJ would have to block it would be HHI on market concentration of NA BO marketshare while ignoring OTT consumption. It would also ignore what is defined as monopoly by the courts under section 2 of the Sherman AntiTrust Act.

    Someone can still buy Disney whole, but a 200B company is harder to be acquired than a 30B one. Activision could buy the 50B Disney of your dreams and turn Mickey into a Call of Duty character. I get it though, you would rather Disney had expanded and grown by creating new parks and Disney assets. Organically, as you put it. Iger may have expanded and diversified more than purists would like. Or not have focused on the core part of Disney like purists would like. I will give you that. I have a hard time seeing the company's market cap tripling over the past 10 years with your alternative path though.

    Funny you say "TWDC won’t be able to give Disney, or Star Wars or Marvel for that matter, the focus and resources to grow" because it's hard to argue Star Wars or Marvel haven't grown significantly since 2012 and 2009 respectively. It's also clear how Disney has grown under in the past decade. You may hate the direction, but the growth is clear. I will agree, though, that if they become unfocused they can easily fall apart. I see no signs of that, though.

    Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs” and “Pinocchio” to “Cinderella”, “Peter Pan”, and “20,000 Leagues Under the Sea” and so on will still exist. They don't disappear or stop being cherished because Zootopia, Frozen, and Jungle Book remake got made.

    I digress though, I won't change your mind, you won't change mine. You may not accept or like it, but what I said earlier is true. Your ideal of an ideal Disney is long gone and it's not coming back.

    Does your older prefer Dumbo/Snow White or Avengers, Spider-Man, Justice League, or Star Wars? If it's the former, that's cool, but different than every 11 year old boy I ever met. Disney is covering all the bases here. They had a HUGE gap in the boys market that Saban couldn't fit, so they divested that and got Marvel and Lucas.

    Disney is also not ignoring the classics and the younger audiences. They just released a great new Ducktales series, for example.
     
  15. CherylM

    CherylM Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2015
    Messages:
    1,013
    Likes Received:
    1,671
    Oh, he definitely prefers Marvel and Star Wars at this point...but he will request a classic now and then. He is BEYOND thrilled with the new Ducktales.
     
    MisterPenguin likes this.
  16. Loopzoop444

    Loopzoop444 Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2016
    Messages:
    42
    Likes Received:
    65
    Okay don't anti trust laws exist to prevent this kind of crazy shenanigans?
     
  17. MisterPenguin

    MisterPenguin Premium Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2016
    Messages:
    5,091
    Likes Received:
    20,458
    Just two posts above yours...

     
  18. MichRX7

    MichRX7 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2003
    Messages:
    1,050
    Likes Received:
    271
    I'm done with this thread until talks resume.
     
    ULPO46 likes this.
  19. 2351metalcloud

    2351metalcloud Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2016
    Messages:
    129
    Likes Received:
    100
    In regards to some previous comments about branding and what to do with some of the things Fox owns, I would like to add some comments. I think Fox has a greater association with epic action movies, general action movies, crasser movies and tv shows, more dramatic movies, more controversial movies and tv shows, and more dramatic movies than movies that come out under the Disney brand. However, they have also made family oriented movies like Disney has.

    Fox apparently owns many of the movies and some of the tv shows produced by New World Pictures. Many of these have similarities to some of the movies made by Miramax after Disney purchased them in that they are what many people would describe as 'schlocky' movies. These have some similarity to some of the Tarantino movies made with Miramax and some movies by Robert Rodriguez who made some movies with Miramax. Many of the movies made by New World Pictures were made by Roger Corman. Interestingly, New World Pictures has a history with the Marvel company.

    I think Fox could have some branding association with it at least when compared to some of Disney's channels due to it's name and names of some of the channels it owns. I am thinking that part of what the FX and FXX channel names could connote to English speaking viewers is that the content of the channels might be usually or always more 'extreme','explicit', and/or less child-appropriate than the content on some or all other Disney owned channels. The X in English speaking societies also seems to have an association with alcohol and erotic materials like strip clubs and ****ography. I think Disney would generally not want to bring up associations with the latter much, but the name FXX seems to already bring it up somewhat, but I don't think they try to lean much towards an association with erotic or ****ographic material but rather lean more towards an association with crass and extreme programming. I think the FXX name was chosen while these connotations were known by the people relevant to the choice of the name and that they still went with the choice for the name with this knowledge. I don't think they simply added an X to FX without knowing these connotation among some people.

    This connotation and association with the X in the name and the idea of 'extreme' and 'explicit' might seem kind of cliched, but as long as there isn't a ad campaign bringing up that FX is 'extreme' that many people find foolish and silly, I think many people wouldn't find the idea silly or cliched. Many people might not really think about the X and it's association with programs that are less appropriate for children and may just notice that the programs on the FX and FXX channel would tend to or always be less appropriate for children than the programs on other channels owned by Disney.

    Additionally, these connotations with the letter X in English speaking societies could also extend to theatrical films. If Disney were to release films with the name of FOX or 20th Century FOX or some other similar names which I'll discuss later, they could also have some people create an association with past 20th Century Fox movies that tend to be more extreme or different in some ways from many movies in the past that Disney has released with the Disney name. I've mentioned some of these differences in tendencies between 20th Century Fox movies and movies released with the Disney name on them above.

    Something else interesting is that this X could even extend to the X-Men or at least the X-Men in theatrical films rather than in tv shows and past cartoons. However, this X could also extend to X-Men tv shows as well if desired. The X could extend to the past and potentially future X-Men movies by these movies in the past and in the future tending to be 'darker' in tone, 'darker' in cinematography, and possibly generally having fewer jokes than MCU movies outside of some X-Men movie series such as Deadpool and/or movies focused on the group or members of the group called 'X-Force'. Even for Deadpool, the X in FOX can still have relevant connotations in how the much of the movie is generally believed by many to be more 'extreme' in terms of violence, language, and maybe some other things than MCU movies and some other superhero movies.

    Partly due to this, I think if Disney purchased FOX, Marvel should at least not immediately try to incorporate the X-Men into existing in the same movie universe as the current MCU. The idea of the X-Men and other superheroes existing in the same movie universe seems kind of strange. I have seen many people wonder why mutants would be often reviled and discriminated against even including the X-Men while some superheroes that exist in the same 'universe' in the comics are not reviled nor discriminated against by many people. If this same situation were to occur in the MCU, there would somehow need to be some sort of explanation for this I think or it will detract from the movies to a significant degree for some people. Mutants could be in the MCU somehow if there was to be some way that superheros started to be hated and mutants started to arise in the population and they were disliked as well, but I think this might take away from the tone of the MCU that many people have become used to. Additionally, adding the X-Men to the MCU generally would likely require the MCU to change the focus of at least some of their movies to be about things people aren't used to them mentioning much in the movies such as discrimination. Adding mutants to the MCU also may generally just make the MCU more complicated to make movies about depending more specifically on how it was done and what other superheroes would be also in the MCU. Having mutants and non-mutant superheroes may also add many characters that may again make it more difficult to make movies. It may be simpler to just keep the X-Men in a separate movie universe that is maybe more dystopic at least in regards to how people in the movie universe perceive those with superpowers than the MCU movies generally are. I think this could also play in to the X in the name of FOX and even X-Men if desired. Some people may associate the X as possibly connoting a darker or more serious tone than the MCU movies. Maybe Disney and Marvel wouldn't like that however. Even if they wanted to have the movies to be more similar to the MCU in terms of style and tone, the X with the name of the movies could still create an idea among people that these movies aren't in the same movie universe as the regular MCU if it were branded as being the 'XMCU' or 'XMMCU'. This would again allow the X connotations to come into play in how things associated with FOX are somewhat separated and different from things more closely associated with Disney.

    I imagine it has likely already occurred to Disney the possibilities of the connotations with the letter X and associations with the company FOX and other things. Like I said it seems like FOX realized this with calling a channel FXX and even had a show called The X-Files. There is also the association with FX and special effects for videos. That could go along with the work that James Cameron has done with ambitious attempts of the use of special effects in movies that are affiliated with FOX, but I'm not sure how much FOX tries to promote such a connotation or if Disney in the future would want to try to connote some sort of connotation like that with part of the FOX or FX company or with the an association with the FOX company in general.

    Also, immediately making movies with the same characters as past X-Men movies might make some fans of some of the characters upset and have some problems with new movies and additionally it decreases the value of those past movies and merchandise relating to them. It also possibly might create somewhat of a negative reflection on some of FOX's past work if it makes it seem like to some people that those movies FOX did weren't good enough in the eyes of Marvel Studios and/or Disney. It's a bit of a different situation, but Disney hasn't yet tried to remake the Star Wars prequels or say that they aren't canon. The same is true of Indiana Jones 4.

    Something interesting about FXX and FOX tv shows from the past and the present is that they have some animated tv shows that vary from somewhat appropriate for children such as The Simpsons to animated tv shows such as Archer that are not appropriate for children and seem to be aimed towards adult and late teen audiences. This is something Disney doesn't really have. Imagine if talent writing or generally working on animation aimed at adults could move to working on live action tv shows or movies aimed at adults or vice versa from live action to animation. There could even be switches involved from animated tv shows or movies more appropriate for children to live action things appropriate for children or vice versa. Also, there could be switches from animation not appropriate for children to animation appropriate for children. However, switches like this I believe are not something that Pixar tends to like to do and the same may be for Disney theatrical animation, but it occurs with Fox animation. Imagine if Disney could eventually get to the point that they could own one or more studio that makes some animated shows and movies that are similar in genre to some past adult oriented dramatic Touchstone, Miramax, FOX Searchlight, and 20th Century FOX movies and successfully have them aimed at the same audience as those movies. There could be some benefits in some cases like with some of the 20th Century Fox style movies where there could be some savings in cost by having the movie/show animated rather than primarily live action and a few cases where having it animated allows for some interesting cheaper possibilities (think of things like from Futurama, Star Trek: The Animated Series, Life of Pi, and The Red Turtle in terms of the savings in cost for animation rather than live action).

    I guess I should say that in this post in general when I say 'appropriate for children' I don't necessarily mean that what I'm referring to is only aimed at children as an audience, although that may sometimes be the case. An example of someone that would have been interesting if Disney could have had him working on things for FOX is Dan Harmon. In the past he has helped with at least a draft of Kung Fu Panda, helped with the writing of Dr. Strange by reportedly adding more comedy, and has made a fairly popular animated show called Rick & Morty that is popular among people who are adults and in their late teens. Dan Harmon is kind of an outspoken guy however and has said some things that maybe Disney would prefer a person involved in tv shows and movies they would own would not say, but he is just one example. Wes Anderson is another example as he made movies with Touchstone and now is making a 2nd animated movie for Fox. The animated things that appeal more to late teens than many Disney animated things is something Disney doesn't have much of like Cartoon Network and Nick. It could allow for the possibility of adaptions or spin offs into or from live action movies or tv shows. It could even allow for things like animated action (maybe even something by Marvel) or dramatic animated tv shows or animated movies that were aimed at people in their late teens or in adulthood. The animated movie like that might not happen unless as something offered on a streaming network however.

    Another topic is Fox Searchlight. Having Fox Searchlight and 20th Century Fox could be beneficial to Disney if Disney ever wanted to build one or more theme parks having to do with FOX or that feature many FOX movies. Fox Searchlight could function similar to Miramax and maybe Touchstone to some degree, except that there is an association with other FOX things such as FOX tv shows and 21st Century FOX movies. The FOX Searchlight and Miramax films have seemed to tend to make films that are trying to be more prestigious than many 20th Century FOX movies and movies released with the Disney name. So, Disney could possibly partly or totally use FOX Searchlight and maybe Touchstone to release movies that are trying to be more prestigious than many 20th Century FOX movies and movies released with the Disney name. Then talent behind some of these movies could transfer over and help with the creation of some 20th Century Fox movies. Disney would then benefit more from these talents than they seemed to do with talents from Miramax . Some movies from 20th Century FOX seem to tend to be somewhat more similar in style to many of the movies made by these talents at FOX Searchlight than movies released with the Disney name on them have tended to be. Talents from FOX Searchlight may then tend to find the idea of making movies for 20th Century Fox more appealing than they may have found making movies with the Disney name in the past. It seems like some of the talents from Touchstone and Miramax like Shymalan, Wes Anderson, Robert Rodriguez, Peter Jackson, and Tarantino didn't make many movies that are appropriate for children and could be featured in a theme park aiming to be mostly child-appropriate. Anderson, Jackson, and Rodriguez did make some, but if Disney were able to benefit from these child appropriate movies and movies that are less child appropriate then they could benefit more.

    Additionally, another benefit of possibly purchasing FOX is the ability to make mini-series and movies that aren't appropriate for children while it being associated with a recognizable name other than Disney for a streaming service like Hulu. Talent from FOX Searchlight and Touchstone could even work on mini-series and movies for such a streaming service. Programs like these would help Disney's streaming service compete better with Netflix and Amazon who have similar style shows, mini-series, and movies.

    There is a benefit of getting access to some of FOX's channels that I noticed. They could maybe do something different with Freeform and DisneyXD and FX so that there at least wouldn't be commercials on Freeform for horror tv shows that don't seem child-appropriate in-between parts of Disney and Pixar movies that are child-appropriate.

    Further more, if Disney purchased FOX's share of Hulu, they presumably would be the majority holder of Hulu and therefore benefit from presumably having more control over the service. Also, they might benefit more from these connections with FOX Searchlight and Touchstone if they were to put these movies, mini-series, and movies that aren't appropriate for children on Hulu rather than making a new general service or on a streaming service that is referred to as a general Disney streaming service. Hulu is already established as a service in comparison to some new service Disney could make. Disney may wish to avoid some conflicts people may have with the idea of Disney putting things that aren't appropriate for children on a service that is mostly about Disney even if the things that are inappropriate for children can be blocked form viewing. This association with the connotations with the X in FOX in comparison to the Disney name again comes in to play here I think.

    A minor thing in regards to branding I would want to note is that FOX's live action tv shows seem to tend to have similar cinematography in comparison to one another. I think CBS, NBC, and ABC also tend to do this with many shows on their channel as well. Maybe I am imagining things for some of these shows, but it is something I wanted to note. These cinematography similarities could even be extended to other things like mini-series or movies made for a streaming service or maybe even for some theatrical movies if desired to create a greater association between certain things. I'm not so sure if this would really be desired much for theatrical movies however except for maybe some spinoff movies and/or certain movie franchises.

    Another idea I had in regards to Marvel and Fox was that Disney or Marvel Studios could have certain mini-series and tv shows or even movies based on some past Marvel comics be made by Fox or in co-productions with Fox that would be available on a streaming service with other tv shows, series, and movies associated with FOX rather than a streaming service just for the MCU or a catalog group of programs/movies of the MCU on a streaming service. This Marvel section of a streaming service associated with Fox and that is separate from most MCU movies/shows might be a good place to put the Marvel Netflix shows if Disney got the rights to them back. This would be good especially for the Marvel Netflix shows due to how they generally aren't appropriate for children. Additionally, past Marvel movies and some tv shows such as the Daredevil movie, Fantastic Four movies, Fox made X-Men movies, and maybe some or all X-Men live action tv shows could appear here. Maybe some movies based on Marvel characters, but not made by Fox such as the Spider-Man, Punisher, Ghost Rider, and some other movies could also appear in this catalog group for a streaming service if Disney could get the rights to them permanently or just to stream them there. Possibly, old X-Men animated tv-shows and movies and other Marvel animated tv-shows/movies that are child-appropriate would appear on a service with the MCU stuff rather than FOX as those animated things would probably be more in line with more of the target audience of the MCU movies than the X-Men movies. The animated shows and movies would just have a separate section on the MCU affiliated streaming service.

    An idea I had was that FOX maybe in co-production with Marvel Studios could make other movies or shows that are based on Marvel comics that don't have to do with superheros such as Marvel's old romance, military, 'Western', and 'horror' comics. A recent example of something like this is the Riverdale tv show. Possibly some of these could be considered part of the MCU and fit the style, tone, and child-appropriateness of previous MCU movies, but I think many people paying for a group of MCU movies and shows wouldn't really want to pay for these shows/movies if they don't have to do with superheroes, so it may make more sense to include them on another streaming service or at least as part of a different catalog group. Additionally, if they didn't have anything to do with superheroes it might not be that appealing to say that they are part of the MCU unless they appear in a MCU show or movie that has to do with superheroes. That would probably only happen if they were a show/movie having to do with the military or a super powered 'horror' character like a werewolf or something. I'm not sure Marvel really wants to try to do something like that in the recent future at least.

    Something else FOX could do is create a third movie/show universe separate from the current MCU and X-Men possibly in co-production with Marvel Studios. Some of the benefits of doing this is that it could make some things easier to write if you don't have to worry about the current or past MCU. You could also have the superheros be as powerful as the big MCU superheros and fight villains that are as powerful as the ones they often fight while having it make sense that you don't see the MCU Avengers and similar MCU superheroes. I'm not sure if Marvel would want to do this. However having the possibility to have it separate from Marvel somewhat by having it made by FOX or in co-production with FOX could allow some big MCU fans maybe to be more accepting of the fact that at least initially the universe wouldn't go along with the phrase sometimes associated with the MCU of "It's all connected." There could still be some crossover of the universes in the future however through a similar way it's occurred in the comics in the past .

    Yet another thing interesting about having FOX would be to have streaming of certain things like certain e-sports events and maybe some media like some videos from Disney's network of YouTubers and videos from Vice Media (which Disney has a stake in) to appear on a streaming service associated with FOX rather than Disney. Vice Media in particular would go better on a streaming service associated with some programming from FXX.

    Something they could do with Blue Sky due to its name is to release more unusual movies, maybe even ones that would be more similar to some movies called by many as 'arthouse'. For example, Fantastic Mr. Fox, Isle of Dogs, and the Peanuts movie to some degree fit kind of what I'm thinking. They are kind of different from much of Disney and Pixar's long theatrical movies although maybe similar to some short films made by them. I'm not sure about the financial viability of focusing a lot on movies like this. Also, I'm not sure if Disney would want the name Blue Sky to stay due to the usage of the phrase 'blue sky' in Disney imagineering. It has an interesting connotation that the movie makers might be more free to make something different from Disney and Pixar's usual style, but I don't know if Disney would want that association with the phrase 'blue sky' or to bring up the idea that Pixar and Disney animation talent aren't as free in their work as people at another company. I'm not sure what exactly is a part of 20th Century Fox Animation, but if there is a significant team with this name, they could maybe do something different from Blue Sky or be combined into them.
     
    Last edited: Nov 10, 2017
  20. 2351metalcloud

    2351metalcloud Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2016
    Messages:
    129
    Likes Received:
    100
    Something interesting is how Al-Waleed bin Talal might figure into FOX possibly selling some of the things they own to Disney.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Waleed_bin_Talal
    http://www.businessinsider.com/walt-disney-is-raising-its-stake-in-paris-disneyland-2017-2


    I wonder if National Geographic could ever be worked into Epcot someday or be worked into regional entertainment or something to do with Adventures by Disney or some similar operation like that, but with a different name. Maybe if a park was ever made that focused on stuff to do with things the FOX owned there could be a section to that park that had some similarities to Epcot, but was different somehow and had relation to National Geographic and their history in some way.


    I believe Constantin Film is still somehow related to the movie rights to the Fantastic Four. They've been listed as being involved in the production of all three Fantastic Four movies that FOX has been involved in.


    I've been thinking if Disney bought it, they could change the name of the FOX movie studio and tv production studio to something like FXEG with the 'FX' not actually standing for anything. I think this can help to distinguish the fact that it is no longer affiliated with the main FOX tv channel as Disney wouldn't be able to buy it. I think this allow people to be able to be easily remember that this company is historically related to past things that used the FOX name, but is no longer owned by the FOX company that has the main channel and news company. Also, it allows people to easily realize that something that was made maybe decades ago with this new FXEG name attached to it in the future might have previously been originally released under some FOX company name.

    Maybe FXEG could be the name for the overarching company that owns the tv show production studio stuff and the movie production studio and distribution business. Maybe the tv studio could be called FXTVG or FXTV or FXTG. The movie studio could be called FXMG or 20th Century FX Movies or maybe 20th Century FX or 21st Century FX. FOX searchlight would become FX Searchlight or maybe FXM Searchlight or FXEG Searchlight.

    The FX in at least some of the logos could be that version of FX that has the letter X inside of a circle with the lines of the X seeming to be made by the lights coming from two spotlights/searchlights whose beams of light are intersecting. Keeping the letters FX in the name of some companies somehow helps connect with the current channels called FX, FXX, and FXM and seems like a fairly common sense change to make to me. It might seem somewhat odd initially however for businesses with the FX name to exist while the channel called FOX still exists, but people might get used to it over time. The fact that there already is a channel called FX might help.

    I guess whether they do this stuff might also be affected by any previous companies that might use the letters FX in their name and what businesses they are involved in. I guess the tv studios and movie studios are the big thing though and if they wanted to release books or something based on a movie or tv show made by some company that is part of this 'FXEG' group, they could just make up a different name for the company involved with making books as I don't think people will care that much if it says that the books are made by 'F24 Books' (because X is the 24 letter in the English alphabet) or something other name.

    Some other ideas I had for names are FXO, FXKO, FX-KO, or FX-RKO if Disney wanted to somehow bring RKO into things for some reason maybe as a way to further distance the companies name from the other FOX company. The FXO change could be made without doing that, but it seems slightly odd I think. FXO still allows some connection with past things associated with the FOX name, but it seems maybe a bit goofy to some people to just switch the O over to the end unless there was some explanation to it. I also thought Disney could go with FX-D as a name or maybe FX-Disney or FX-Disney Entertainment Group (FXDEG). Using FX-D or FXD for some things might help to get around some problems with previous trademarks that involve the use of 'FX' in the name, but I'm not sure how much of a problem there would be about that. I don't know a great deal about international trademark laws. Although I have some interest in the design and ideas for logos.




    What do you all think in regards to ideas for what the name of the big group of companies or the individual names for the parts of this big group should be in the future for things that currently have 'FOX' or 'FX' in their title(s)?

    This is assuming Disney buys a bunch of FOX tv channels and the FOX movie and studios, but Disney also didn't want at least some of the channels/studios to be Disney-__ with the __ being something appended after the word Disney.
     
    Last edited: Nov 11, 2017
    David2319 likes this.

Share This Page