Disney Buys Fox

All topics relating to content owned by Disney that is not Disney-branded.
willard
Gold Classic Collection
Posts: 141
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2013 6:58 pm

Re: Disney Buys Fox

Post by willard »

With the X-men, I hope they explore question of "why are mutants hated more than other superhumans". People have said that the X-men themes make no sense in the context of the Marvel Universe but I think the presence of other superhumans would add more complexity to prejudice.
User avatar
Sotiris
Ultimate Collector's Edition
Posts: 19912
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 3:06 am
Gender: Male
Location: Fantasyland

Re: Disney Buys Fox

Post by Sotiris »

Elizabeth Gabler’s Fox 2000 To Shutter As Disney Takes Over
https://deadline.com/2019/03/elizabeth- ... 202580356/
Particularly since the output of films is expected to be low. For instance 20th, which has been making a full-size slate of pictures since The Depression, might only be able to make four theatrical films and four streaming films per year, if the rumors I am hearing are true.
Source: https://deadline.com/2019/03/fox-film-d ... 202579443/
ImageImageImageImageImageImage
User avatar
Sotiris
Ultimate Collector's Edition
Posts: 19912
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 3:06 am
Gender: Male
Location: Fantasyland

Re: Disney Buys Fox

Post by Sotiris »

Disney will not be shutting down or selling Blue Sky Studios.
Fox’s remaining studios — 20th Century Fox, Fox Family (now moving under the purview of 20th), Fox Searchlight Pictures and Blue Sky Studios have now joined former rivals Walt Disney Animation Studios, Disney (live action), Pixar Animation Studios, Marvel Studios, Lucasfilm, Disney Music Group and Disney Theatrical Group. The units now under one umbrella will create content for theatrical and the upcoming Disney+ streaming platforms.
Source: https://deadline.com/2019/03/disney-fil ... 202580586/
ImageImageImageImageImageImage
Mickeyfan1990
Collector's Edition
Posts: 2559
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 12:24 pm

Re: Disney Buys Fox

Post by Mickeyfan1990 »

Told you! :D
User avatar
Farerb
Diamond Edition
Posts: 4675
Joined: Sat May 19, 2018 2:09 pm

Re: Disney Buys Fox

Post by Farerb »

Does Disney really need a third animation studio?
User avatar
Rumpelstiltskin
Anniversary Edition
Posts: 1290
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 9:05 pm

Re: Disney Buys Fox

Post by Rumpelstiltskin »

https://variety.com/2019/film/news/disn ... 203169772/
Animation label Blue Sky Studios is expected to complete the release of two films in production, Variety reported last year, though its fate after that point is unknown.
One can only hope for the best. The two films in production are Spies in Disguise and Nimona. Where that leaves Foster, which was supposed to be a fantasy and the studio's first musical, and a project they have already invested a lot in, remains to be seen.
farerb wrote:Does Disney really need a third animation studio?
If we lose another alternative to Pixar and Disney, we will see less variation what animated features are concerned. If Disney is the owner or not is not that important as long as they don't interfere too much.
Big Disney Fan wrote:I also can't help but wonder how Walt Disney would react to his company now owning so many studios and media outlets left and right. I don't think he would be too pleased.
Not sure what I would have thought about it. He didn't like to repeat himself, and during the last years of his life, it appears he was more interested in doing stuff in the real world. First it was Disneyland (including attractions like Tomorrow's World), then it was Mineral King ski resort, which was never built, and then the original vision for EPCOT, which actually sounded like a good idea. But after considering to close down the animation department after 101 Dalmatians, he did decide to keep it. And during the production of The Jungle Book, he said something like "I had forgotten how fun this could be". Disney was a real entrepreneur.
willard wrote:With the X-men, I hope they explore question of "why are mutants hated more than other superhumans". People have said that the X-men themes make no sense in the context of the Marvel Universe but I think the presence of other superhumans would add more complexity to prejudice.
Logically, that have never made any real sense. It did make a little sense when Fox had the movie rights, because then mutants were the only superhumans on the planet. Now when they are joining the rest of the cinematic Marvel universe, we have robots, aliens, gods, demons, magicians, talking raccoons, walking trees and non-mutant superheroes and villains.
User avatar
thedisneyspirit
Anniversary Edition
Posts: 1503
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 11:42 am

Re: Disney Buys Fox

Post by thedisneyspirit »

Seeing Bart Simpson as a Disney character is so utterly bizarre.

Also, no, I feel they're also gonna ignore stuff from the comics to make their own X-Men. It's curious how in these years with current politics you'd think the X-Men would be more popular and relevant than ever, but people scrutinize and lambast them while kissing the feet of Tony Stark (you know, a character that embodies everything these people hate - a rich industrialist war profiteer).
User avatar
Rumpelstiltskin
Anniversary Edition
Posts: 1290
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 9:05 pm

Re: Disney Buys Fox

Post by Rumpelstiltskin »

More:

https://www.rotoscopers.com/2019/03/21/ ... -complete/
An even bigger concern for the animation community is regarding Blue Sky Studios, which Disney has been very vague about. It remains a mystery what Disney will do with the Connecticut-based animation studio, especially since it now has to co-exist with Disney Animation, Pixar, and Lucasfilm Animation. The fate of Blue Sky and their upcoming animated movies like Spies in Disguise, Nimona, and Foster will be in the air for now until Disney makes an announcement.

As for non-Blue Sky animated productions, Fox originally had a Bob’s Burgers film and Ron’s Gone Wrong (their first collaboration with London-based Locksmith Animation) both scheduled theatrically for 2020. Like with all upcoming Fox films, it’s currently unknown if they will be releasing in cinemas as planned, sent directly to either Disney+ or Hulu, sold to another distributor, or cancelled altogether.
thedisneyspirit wrote:Also, no, I feel they're also gonna ignore stuff from the comics to make their own X-Men. It's curious how in these years with current politics you'd think the X-Men would be more popular and relevant than ever, but people scrutinize and lambast them while kissing the feet of Tony Stark (you know, a character that embodies everything these people hate - a rich industrialist war profiteer).
Different people have different opinions. X-Men has been stuck in the same narrative for decades now, and it is time to move on. I would love to see a theatrical version of X-Men where they people do not hate them just because they are mutants. The most famous X-Men run in the comics was the John Byrne and Chris Claremont run, and except from Days of Future Past, which was a future they prevented from happening, there was no hate for mutants in the world.
User avatar
unprincess
Collector's Edition
Posts: 2134
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2013 5:00 pm

Re: Disney Buys Fox

Post by unprincess »

Sotiris wrote:The official website for The Walt Disney Company has updated their header.

Image
Source: https://thewaltdisneycompany.com/
well that was fast! I cant believe how disgustingly huge this company has gotten. Ive been following them since the late 1980s when Oliver and Company blew me away at the theater, would have never thought Id see the day they'd get this colossal. Kinda sad how much of their identity has eroded over the decade , and it can only get worse from now on.

Also they're gonna have to set some boundaries/guidelines/whatever on whats gonna constitute "Disney" vs a property owned by the Disney company. I can never see things like Simpsons, Aliens or Avatar as Disney, no matter how much they dress them up in mouse ears and shove them into the theme parks. Yeah some of them might fit Disney thematically... Avatar, Star Wars, Marvel... but I have never seen Star Wars and Marvel as Disney, heck I have never seen Muppets as Disney and barely allow Pixar as somewhat under that umbrella only b/c in later years their films have looked so interchangeable. But I assume the average person wont care and that's all that matters to them.


As for X-men I think they'll go for the 90s animated series team as its the most recognizable and we are just starting a 90s nostalgia wave... but please no more Dark Phoenix. Also Id really love a Generation X team as a series, either animated or live action.
willard
Gold Classic Collection
Posts: 141
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2013 6:58 pm

Re: Disney Buys Fox

Post by willard »

Logically, that have never made any real sense. It did make a little sense when Fox had the movie rights, because then mutants were the only superhumans on the planet. Now when they are joining the rest of the cinematic Marvel universe, we have robots, aliens, gods, demons, magicians, talking raccoons, walking trees and non-mutant superheroes and villains.
See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUe2nKdrBqg
User avatar
bradhig
Anniversary Edition
Posts: 1109
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2005 10:59 pm
Location: Olathe , Kansas

Re: Disney Buys Fox

Post by bradhig »

Disney didn't need the FOX stuff for their streaming service. They have all those back episodes of the Wonderful World of Disney going back to the 60s and movies that haven't and old Disney channel stuff they could put on the streaming serivce ,but they had to steal someone else's thunder instead.
gamer51
Member
Posts: 43
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2012 12:32 pm

Re: Disney Buys Fox

Post by gamer51 »

This should have NEVER been allowed. Why not allow Disney to buy Paramount/CBS and MGM while they are at it??
Mickeyfan1990
Collector's Edition
Posts: 2559
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 12:24 pm

Re: Disney Buys Fox

Post by Mickeyfan1990 »

gamer51 wrote:This should have NEVER been allowed. Why not allow Disney to buy Paramount/CBS and MGM while they are at it??
Because Viacom is on the verge of merging with CBS and if anyone should get MGM it's Warner. And before you say anything, yes, I'm aware of the facetious tone in your comment.
Mickeyfan1990
Collector's Edition
Posts: 2559
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 12:24 pm

Re: Disney Buys Fox

Post by Mickeyfan1990 »

No wide-scale layoffs for the TV departments according to Peter Rice:
https://deadline.com/2019/03/new-disney ... 202583695/
User avatar
Sotiris
Ultimate Collector's Edition
Posts: 19912
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 3:06 am
Gender: Male
Location: Fantasyland

Re: Disney Buys Fox

Post by Sotiris »

Fox Nearly Made a Promo With Lisa Simpson as a Disney Princess, Says Yeardley Smith
https://variety.com/2019/tv/news/lisa-s ... 203176488/
ImageImageImageImageImageImage
User avatar
Rumpelstiltskin
Anniversary Edition
Posts: 1290
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 9:05 pm

Re: Disney Buys Fox

Post by Rumpelstiltskin »

In my opinion that's retconning, the introduction of ideas used to explain stuff that had already been around for years. The main reason is probably because somebody at Marvel thought it would be a great idea to make mutants be about hate, bigotry and discrimination. An idea that has become tiresome after all these years. Yes, Stan Lee thought it would be a good idea to introduce heroes that were hated instead of loved just for the sake of variation. These were the early days of the Marvel universe where consistency and inner logic were not taken as seriously as today. And the early Magneto was a wannabe Hitler who meant mutants were superior. But that concept was eventually abandoned and what we got instead was a team of superhumans who were bonded together because of the origin of their powers and the fact that they all went to a school to learn to master them.

Also, if there is an organism like Sublime that is affecting human behavior, the whole "hate, bigotry and discrimination" allegory falls flat because it takes away your free will and turns humans into puppets of a "higher power" for the lack of a better description, that don't hate mutants, but consider them just an obstacle (but not a threat to its existence), the same way someone who can't digest lactose consider dairy products an annoyance. The metaphor for racism doesn't work either. Racism is represented by someone from the outside, people of a different background than yourself living in the same area. Mutations are cased by changes from within, not from the outside, even if radioactivity or some other mutagens are required to trigger the mutations in your own genes, which you then pass on to your children.

The only difference between mutants and superhumans like Fantastic Four, Hulk and Spider-Man (forget the Spider-totem nonsense) is that mutants were born with their powers. According to Lee, he got the idea after all the testing of nuclear weapons, where radioactive particles would become part of our atmosphere and the air we are breathing, triggering mutations in humans who would on some occasions give birth to mutant babies. There are two types of mutants; those who are born from parents that already has superpowers themselves, like Franklin Richards, and those who are born from parents without powers.

But later on being a mutant became something more. Originally there were no more mutants than you could count. They all had a specific name and power. Then we were introduced to the morlocks, and suddenly they were too many to count. And then, due to some genetic countdown, there were suddenly millions out there. Also something about secondary mutations, and how Vargas, a superhuman born with powers, was not a mutant but a part of humanity's immune system against mutants.

After Scarlet Witch turned the majority of mutants into non-mutants, there was born a baby some time after that. A baby born with "the X-gene". Not a mutation, but THE X-gene, whatever that is. Probably the same gene that makes mutants immune to the Techno-Organic Virus from the Phalanx and Sublime. There are also viruses targeting specifically mutants, but not superhumans in general. As for the Sublime virus, it doesn't make that much sense. It's a virus infecting all living creatures. Humans are just a small part of all the life on earth. There are plenty of others; arthropods, protozoa, fungi and plants and so on, it can infect and probably does. No reason to be completely dependent on a single primate species. Just because you are allergic against peanuts doesn't mean you can't eat all the other food.

A mutation meant that you were born with a different genetic profile that manifested itself in either powers and/or a different body. You were born with it, that's what the mutation meant. Now being a mutant means something more, even if it is never explained. That's why they talk about "mutant powers", instead of just being born with specific superpowers. Are Angel's wings a mutantpower? Of course not. What about Beast's body? In the movie his hand turned human once it got close to Leech, which was absolutely ridiculous. The same thing happened when Wolverine and Beast was captured and sent to a prison for supervillains. They were given a collar that removed their mutant abilities. Wolverine's sense of smell and hearing were probably a lot weaker, but the silliest thing was that Hank got his human body back, as if being a blue gorilla was a special power.

Other than that, the distinction between humans and mutants is artificial. Mutants are humans, but they are humans with one or more talents others don't have. It is not the powers themselves, because other superhumans have them too. It is apparently the fear of being replaced. But older generations have always been replaced by younger generations. If those generations have extra powers, then so what. It's not who they are, but the fact that their powers can be passed on to new generations. Which parents wouldn't want the best for their children?
In the real world there is no such thing as next stage in evolution from one generation to the next. It is mutations combined with natural selection over longer periods of time, and the evolution is a blind process, even if it is something possible to predict the evolutionary direction.
Last edited by Rumpelstiltskin on Sat Mar 30, 2019 9:04 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Rumpelstiltskin
Anniversary Edition
Posts: 1290
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 9:05 pm

Re: Disney Buys Fox

Post by Rumpelstiltskin »

Disney's acquisition of Fox makes Battle Angel Alita even more special since it is the last movie ever distributed by Fox. But what about the DVD release? Will it contain Disney's name as well? Probably, but I would just hope it didn't. The same with Bohemian Rhapsody and all the Blue Sky releases; the DVDs may say just Fox for now, but re-releases will all say Disney. So if you are a collector, you better buy the pre-Disney Fox movies now, because in the future all will have the Disney stamp. Not really a problem as long as Disney is actually the distributor, but purists prefer things as close to the original condition as possible.
User avatar
bradhig
Anniversary Edition
Posts: 1109
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2005 10:59 pm
Location: Olathe , Kansas

Re: Disney Buys Fox

Post by bradhig »

Mickeyfan1990
Collector's Edition
Posts: 2559
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 12:24 pm

Re: Disney Buys Fox

Post by Mickeyfan1990 »

I told not to worry about the status to R-Rated productions after the merger. I told you. And I was right.

http://www.alien-covenant.com/news/disn ... ien-movies
User avatar
Jules
Diamond Edition
Posts: 4573
Joined: Sun Mar 12, 2006 9:20 am
Gender: Male
Location: Malta, Europe

Re: Disney Buys Fox

Post by Jules »

Good.

Now I hope that the current storyline that started with Prometheus and then Alien Covenant is seen through to a conclusion. I would die if it were abandoned.
Post Reply