MCN Blogs

By MCN Editor

Wither 20th Century Fox?

foxlogoprWhat’s your prediction for the fate of the studio after this fall, once it’s in the full iron grip of Disney?

Be Sociable, Share!

6 Responses to “Wither 20th Century Fox?”

  1. brack says:

    I got nothing.

  2. Sideshow Bill says:

    Ok then. That’s settled.

  3. Hcat says:

    The movie studio will quickly die, they have already cut production in half and shuttered the Fox 2000 component. They grabbed it for the television side. They will make terrible decisions on the Searchlight side and close it within three years.

    The Whole Disney+ enterprise will not go as planned. It will debut huge and start having significant churn. It will be 20 percent off their initial subscriber rate at the two year mark. Their movie output isn’t enough to keep eyeballs and nothiing in the past of ABC, Agents of Shield, thouchstone television indicates that they can keep adult eyeballs transfixed.

  4. Monco says:

    Yes, agree. For the life of me I cant understand why anyone would be excited for a Loki or Bucky-whoever-the-fuck/flying wing dude with captain america shield Marvel TV show spinoff. Endgame was so terrible and one of the worst movies I have seen in a long time. Probably since Last Jedi. BUT…if they put every 20th Century Fox movie ever made on the Disney+ platform I will succumb and grudgingly subscribe to the thing.

  5. Hcat says:

    If they put every fox movie ever made I would happily subscribe. But there is no way that is happening. It will probably get harder to see Peyton Place or an Unmarried Woman. I always put off seeing Damnation Alley, don’t know if the chance will pop up again.

    The Fox library will not be treated with reverence, but as an IP store (like they treat their own film canon),

    The “movies” that make it on to their site are going to be a majority of nontheatrical Disney Channel original filler.

  6. John E says:

    It’ll be what Hollywood Pictures was for Disney in the 1990’s.

The Hot Blog

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon