# Disney Buying Fox (most of)



## Cli-Fi (Nov 6, 2017)

That's one way to get the Fantastic Four back. 



> According to a report from CNBC, 21st Century Fox has been in talks with Disney in recent weeks to sell most of itself, excluding a small portion of the company to focus on news and sports. That means that the deal, if it happens, would almost certainly include the company’s movie properties, including _*X-Men*_ and _*Fantastic Four*_.



Disney Is In Talks To Buy Fox, Finally Getting Marvel Those Fantastic Four And X-Men Rights Back - Bleeding Cool News And Rumors


----------



## Brian G Turner (Nov 7, 2017)

Now this is going to be interesting ...


----------



## KGeo777 (Nov 10, 2017)

I really dont care except Disney's Eisner said in the 90s he wanted Disney to be "entertainer for the globe." Monopolies are bad for arts and culture. Disney is also in the forefront of eliminating the public domain which would have catastrophic consequences for future artists.


----------



## BAYLOR (Nov 10, 2017)

Potential  ant-trust issue might be raised in this discussion.


----------



## KGeo777 (Nov 10, 2017)

Anti-trust laws should have been enacted in the 90s with the first wave of media mergers. There were warnings it would lead to a lack of diversity in media voices and that is exactly what happened. Centralized control is not a good thing. It's Borg-like.  The internet provides a safety valve but it is not at a stage where small media business can develop as an alternative to the big corporations. In 1940, various film people from Orson Welles to Walt Disney developed SIMPP because the big studios were suppressing creative freedom. Time for another SIMPP. The Hollywood Renegades Archive


----------



## EJDeBrun (Nov 10, 2017)

Interesting. Since they are both media giants, it's unlikely anti-trust will get involved unless they end up with an over 50% share of the market. Given what's going on with Time-Warner on the otherside, it's really hard to say what would happen. I doubt the courts would stop it.


----------



## HanaBi (Nov 11, 2017)

Not keen at all. I see this as empire building which offers little choice and even less competition. We can see examples of this everywhere, not least with ISP providers, telecoms providers, grocery stores, television networks, film studios. computer operating systems etc. and now this.

I can see a scenario where only a handful of these big fish will exist in these key industries creating oligopolies in each. Not good for the consumer in my opinion.


----------



## BAYLOR (Nov 11, 2017)

HanaBi said:


> Not keen at all. I see this as empire building which offers little choice and even less competition. We can see examples of this everywhere, not least with ISP providers, telecoms providers, grocery stores, television networks, film studios. computer operating systems etc. and now this.
> 
> I can see a scenario where only a handful of these big fish will exist in these key industries creating oligopolies in each. Not good for the consumer in my opinion.



What happens if they start doing Star Wars/Marvel crossover films?


----------



## Harpo (Nov 11, 2017)

BAYLOR said:


> What happens if they start doing Star Wars/Marvel crossover films?








Or maybe this?


----------



## KGeo777 (Nov 11, 2017)

HanaBi said:


> I can see a scenario where only a handful of these big fish will exist in these key industries creating oligopolies in each. Not good for the consumer in my opinion.




Hollywood (and friends in New York publishing) actively sought monopoly control over media by the 1930s. HP Lovecraft decried the latter in 1933 and Truman Capote did the same in a 1968 Playboy interview. The owners mold content to their tastes, not that of audiences (though it can be hard to see unless one pays attention and compares thematic messages), and they restrict competition using dirty tricks behind the scenes. J Arthur Rank, a British industrialist who wanted to establish a British film industry, discovered that by the 1930s Hollywood controlled 80% of UK cinema screens thanks to friends in the British government.  
Hollywood used "quota quickies" made in Canada to bypass the restrictions on imports.

The anti-trust case on cinema "block booking" in the US had some positive effects, but only for a little while. TV affected the studio monopoly but the big change was the introduction of low cost film stock which allowed many more players to get into film production in the 50s-60s, which is why it is perhaps the most diverse time for world cinema (and one of the most stale for the major Hollywood studios). The Uk had a golden age of film from the 50s-70s and then is suddenly (and rather strangely) died.

Coincidentally (or perhaps not), right as companies like Hammer and Amicus and Rank were dying, the 70s Hollywood majors  co-opted the audience-friendly B movie genres and injected A budgets into them, but they still shaped it along their own narrow tastes. 

Home video killed the independent film theater market in the 80s but opened up a few new ones-but that didnt last long because the major studios--absorbed into larger media companies, eventually bought up distribution or drove the competition out of business.

Digital film tech (and online publishing) should allow a new renaissance in audience-friendly film and literature but the problem is there is no reliable filter for merit, so its like navigating a gigantic ocean without a map-and there is no stable funding or distribution system as of yet. In the 1960s only those who really wanted to make films got into it, so there was some kind of filtering system--a lot of Z grade stuff got made too, but it was much easier to know what was higher quality.

There are also complaints that streaming services like Netflix are greatly restricting access to older films (little before 1960) and Leonard Maltin complained he had to find a mail order dvd of a movie from the 1970s because Netflix didnt offer it (they claimed the copyright licensing was too much of a problem but is that a truthful answer?). 

I dont think other industries have the same kind of monopoly pressure as media does. In Canada which has had feeble media forever, there are a few soda companies of Canadian origin. How on earth can they stay in business? One would think that the big companies like Coca-Cola would drive them out of business but no--they have market access. Either Coca-Cola management doesn't care, or the Canadian government offers some protection to these Canadian start-ups. The question then has to be asked, why is media treated differently?
This can be asked of Canada, the US, England, etc.


----------



## EJDeBrun (Nov 11, 2017)

I would actually argue the opposite. A lot of smaller productions are getting more notice and independents are able to make more media than ever. The thing about it is it's all very unconventional and distribution can be a bit odd.

10 years ago things like GOT and Walking Dead and the Strain would NEVER have made it to TV. Or movies like Scott Pilgrim or Nine.

Personally, when it comes to the lack of variety of media, I put it down to 2 things. Yes, one is big studios. There is a glut in the market, but the problem is that audiences are still going to see super heroes, so that's what you're going to get. And yes, there's a huge nostalgia thing going on right which essentially leads back to the same point.

And it makes sense. They want their money back. Movies are expensive to make. Even a cheap independent will cost you a cool $10mil. Anything that includes a lot of VFX is cheap at $100mil. It's not surprising to have the average at $300-$500mil. And let's not forget good old Avatar at $1billion to make. That's a lot of independent soda companies in one 90 minute segment. And of course those studios are investing that kind of money all the time hoping to make a profit. But when you think about a 4% profit which is the most they can hope for, including costs for distribution and marketing, the average $100mil movie would need to make something like $150mil in the box office to be seen as a "success". To do that, they're obviously going to reduce their risk.

Hence the Mouse's grab for Fox. Jurassic World was the biggest competition last year. Igor has a tendency to see things like and decide he'd rather control them than not. And since Fox is actually in pretty dire straights, especially after Disney got Lucasfilms, it would seem like an obvious move to both. And honestly, I'm not sure I care. Fox doesn't have such amazing creative work that I would look at it go with any kind of real regret.

What I do find unforgivable is the fact that they're NOT willing to gamble the smaller budgets more. I think places like Disney can definitely afford to pay for a couple of $10mil productions every year. Productions that can even be based on other interesting pre-existing franchises. Obviously in the SFF genre, there's tons to work with, but the same could be said for mysteries and historical dramas (look at Downton Abbey or Outlander).

Having said all this, what I actually think is that Disney and the other traditional media giants are feeling the threat of Netflix and Amazon, who both control a much larger share of the TV market than anyone else is comfortable with. That's also what their independent streaming service is about. And you have to give both Netflix and Amazon credit. They are pretty unconventional both in terms of what they'll make and how they'll sell it. It's only a matter of time before they start developing their own feature content and distributing them through the Internet. When that happens, place like Disney, Sony and Time-Warner are going to be in even more trouble than they already are with cable programming.

All this means a change for media in general. The latest rejection of the courts against the Time-Warner merger is just another example. So while, yes, Disney taking Fox's properties could be seen as a threat to creatives, it's also a sign that they're feeling left behind in other areas. And fortunately their replacements are a lot more open minded about the markets.


----------



## KGeo777 (Nov 11, 2017)

Serial cable shows are not a replacement for the old fashioned single movie experience. It's like Moby Dick being told in 12 volumes. The content themes are also extremely narrow too. 

I talked to an old professional film crew manager recently and he expressed amazement that despite the digital revolution, movies cost more to make in 2017 than they did in 1987. There is a lot of "Hollywood accounting."
I think we can see from the scandals being uncovered that Hollywood has a lot of managerial problems (and problems with honesty).

I was not particularly fond of JOHN CARTER but I think it was sabotaged by bad marketing and a desire by Disney's management for it to fail, given the ridiculously awful marketing it had--and Disney has always claimed to be the experts on marketing. The JC fiasco reminds me of what happened to Warner Bros. DOC SAVAGE-MAN OF BRONZE--which was meant to be a return to a 1930s style pulp adventure with a confident, non neurotic alpha male hero. The studio deliberately camped it up, claiming audiences wouldnt accept a serious adventure film (even though RKO's King Kong was the best evidence that this was nonsense). So much for giving what the audience wants.

Ironically, Hammer Films (the old one-not the current Hedge Fund version) was created and run by FOUR people and a secretary. It was a family run company. And it saved Universal's rear according to an anecdote told by Christopher Lee.
And people still watch their films. They were very audience-friendly and a completely Western European company. There is no reason why such a company could not exist today IF it could guarantee profitability. It needs stable market access.



Aworrying sign was recent remarks by Ian McKellan and Brian Cox that working class actors in England are being shut out of acting school opportunities. That is a really bad thing if true-since traditionally, historically, most artists came from the general population, not the wealthy.

From a technological standpoint, things have never been better in terms of creative potential--a single person with a home computer has potentially, more creative power than a big studio had with 500 employees TWENTY years ago. It is extraordinary, but, the downside is, the lack of stable funding and distribution networks-I think this hurts professional artists who do not fit the criteria of the monopoly owners.

Another thing to watch for in a few years if if Disney leads the charge to have yet another corporate copyright extension.
I'd love to see the big corporations tank, but they have more money than governments so I can't dismiss their power or behind the scenes shenanigans.
According to Box Office Mojo, this was the worst summer since 1982 for audience attendance and possibly the worst since record taking began in 82. If domestic audiences are being turned off by the lack of diversity in content I would not be surprised. And are the big studios panicking? Not from what I read. They are focused on Asia.

Smaller media companies would get attention back to the home audiences.


----------



## EJDeBrun (Nov 11, 2017)

Disney is in a precarious spot at the moment so it'll be interesting to see what happens over the next couple of years. They're in a lot more trouble than a lot of people realize. On one hand I don't think they will fail completely, but they're going to lose a lot of market share no matter how much they buy unless they make some real changes soon.

Rising movie costs have a very simple explanation as to why their expenses are so high and that is simply VFX. Yes, Hollywood economics plays a part, but in actuality, actors make very little in a feature film compared to what they could make with other things like foreign sponsorship. The 700 plus artist it took to produce something like Avatar definitely cost more than the 5-10 actual actors that appeared in the movie. The fact is that since movie goers are going to the big screen for VFX films (because movies like the Godfather simply don't have as much visual impact for audiences) you're seeing this trend of high expense VFX movies and lower expense TV dramas. That is simply the current trend.

And EVERYTHING has VFX in it. Also, I'd like to point out that animation films back in the mid 1990s were also very expensive, as were their VFX counterparts. Who Framed Roger Rabbit was very expensive to make. Aladdin cost Disney roughwards into the undisclosed $300million mark. This has held steady over the years.

Also, talking about John Carter. John Carter was originally Pixar's "first" live-action filmed that got moved all over the place. It's got its own huge backstory that has nothing to do with it's marketing so much as the insider politics of Disney at the time with John Lasseter pulling all the strings to the point that he forced a producer to take the hit for JC's total box office bomb instead of Andrew Stanton. That was another huge sordid scandal in the industry when it came out and had nothing to do with audiences so much as just pure ego. And Disney learned it's lesson, especially after the spectacular fail of The Lone Ranger. Hence their string of "safe" remakes of Neo-Classical films.

Studios always go to where the money is. Everyone does, to be honest. It takes other people to have guts to make new and interesting stuff. Rather than sitting here and lamenting the short-sightedness of the current Big Studios, I think it's better to look at that as an opportunity because YES. It is actually cheaper and easier to make movies at home.

But to do that requires a whole other skill set a lot of people don't have. I know tons of VFX artists, but very few of them have any actual tangible skills to tell stories. And those with talent are not bothering to work at it. So while on one hand it's easy to sit around and flail one's fist at the lack of creativity in the field, it's also important to realize that there just might not be any sources to work with in the first place.

Anyways, this particular era in film is very similar to the drought in the 70s. Which means there's an opportunity for anyone with the guts and the means to grasp it.


----------



## KGeo777 (Nov 11, 2017)

Visual fx companies also have Hollywood accounting problems.
Ray Harryhausen did a massive amount of FX work by himself and he was working mostly for former poverty row Columbia!


I read the  bio book by Jim Danforth and he mentioned problems that visual fx films had with union rules-animators were not considered regular crew, so it created headaches for potential FX films done by the major studios and allegedly discouraged them (a big budget sword and sorcery films was planned in the mid 70s).

The 70s was still a good time for (independent) film in general. It wasnt as good as the 60s but there were still some independent companies like AIP and Amicus (which made the terrific Burroughs' films the Land That Time Forgot and At the Earth's Core). As well as regional filmmaking.

Given western audiences' growing distaste with the corporate film genre there should be opportunity to make homegrown (and regional) film again. A viable business market needs to develop (I dont think crowd funding is quite the solution yet).


----------



## EJDeBrun (Nov 12, 2017)

Um. No. VFX companies are expensive because they have to pay living wages and even then, they barely do. It took dozens of animators to make Gollum in the LOTR series, and digital characters have only gotten more common and more intense since.

Also, there is NO VFX UNION. There is an animation union. The rules to get in are strict. Studios get around them by hiring overseas. And VFX artists are, for the most part, treated like dirt. To be hired or fired by contract with no benefits and no securities. And yet the work still continues. Could you imagine the expense of making movies if these issues were properly addressed? That is why there is a full scale attack on the VFX industry by the big studios. 

Ray Harryhausen did a few scenes out of his movies. Yes, he did amazing work and was incredibly underpaid. THIS IS NOT UNUSUAL. Every commercial artist working in the animation or VFX industry could claim the same thing except for that strange period of time when Disney and Dreamworks were having animator bidding wars right at the tail end of the 90s. Nowadays, you only get paid a decent wage as a staff member if you've survived long enough to be a lead or supervisor in a house and those are rare. Even then you could still get fired. I had a friend leave such a staff position in ILM because the writing is on the wall and the chances of ILM closing is going higher every year.

Because George Lucas didn't get one penny EVER from ILM. His merchandising rights are what kept ILM going up until he sold the entire Lucasfilm umbrella to the Mouse.

And right now, most VFX movies are closer to glorified animated movies with a few human characters in it. The exact opposite of what Harryhausen was doing. As it is, Hollywood has tried it's damnedest not to pay for VFX and governments have supported that. (See the cases for Vancouver. Also the case of Rhythm and Hues and Life of Pi.)

Anyways, regarding American films anyways, the early 70s were considered a drought that eventually lead the way for filmmakers like Francis Ford Coppola and Woody Allen. And then the B movie busted out with things like Star Wars.

Okay, this is neither here nor there. I just wanted to clarify a bit about the "hollywood economics" you're talking about.


----------



## KGeo777 (Nov 12, 2017)

Not correct. Harryhausen was a producer on his film-he got paid very well. But he was lucky since Schneer was related by family to Columbia's management so he was able to create his own films. Others like Danforth were not able to.

His remarks on unions was how the union hierarchy regarded spfx in the 70s.  I was not speaking of today.

Dont confuse major studios with the independents. The major studios were enfeebled in the 60s--precisely because they were losing touch with audiences-especially the youth. This is where Hammer, AIP, Amicus, and others carried the ball. And they did not have the budgets of the big studios. 
The New Wave of Hollywood was something else. Part of the Hollywood majors desire to co-opt the B movie genres but shape it according to their own tastes.  They finally put A budgets into FX as RKO had done with Kong in the 1930s. 

The point is that Hollywood accounting aka corruption is what is responsible for the cost inflation. Even by going to Canada and getting the taxpayer to foot the bill for VFX costs, they still are claiming losses as they refuse to pay workers.


----------



## EJDeBrun (Nov 12, 2017)

Today's market is not the same as the 70s so it's irrelevant to compare them. There are so many more sources for entertainment. TV, internet as well as theaters with new movies coming out every week.

That said, moviegoers right now go to "old fashioned movie theaters" for a theater experience. Usually the entails some kind of VFX experience. This leads to certain types of movies doing well in the theater circuits. Does this mean that drama's can't do well? No. But it does mean that the predominant movies that come out in theaters are geared towards the experience audiences have come to expect which usually involves a lot of VFX. And there are tons of movies and TV that heavily rely on VFX without anyone noticing it. Movies like Lincoln and Bridge of Spies. And then movies that DON'T rely heavily on VFX are still ridiculously pricey (The Revenant, Inception).

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "corruption". Yes, the film industry economics is skewed and flawed. A very small number of people making a ridiculous amount compared to the general population. Exactly how the industry has been since the beginning, except back then it was producers who made all the money and actors who had to go around begging for jobs. Having said that, VFX is expensive and it is the main reason for cost inflation. Films like Avatar cost a billion dollars, not because the actors and producers and directors are being paid $100mil for their roles per say (I don't know what they were paid. But it definitely wasn't close to the normal pay distribution for a Hollywood movie, which is like, Actors 70% vs rest of production 30%, but because it literally took every single VFX house in the world to make that thing.

And the reality is that they ARE going bankrupt. They have always operated at a loss. Does Jerry Bruckheimer care? Definitely not. He pockets his money and moves on. And that is a long long long debate in the industry. If I really had to pinpoint the reason for this "Hollywood accounting" as you put it, it's really because VFX never valued itself. It didn't have to, since ILM never worried about money. That meant they didn't charge for profit and every other studio who tried to compete contracts with them had to undersell themselves. After 30 years of that, you can imagine that Hollywood didn't want to pay fair prices anymore.

Does this means actors are overpaid? Definitely. And producers are the ones pocketing all the profits from movies. But so long as VFX movies keep making huge box office numbers, they're going to keep making VFX movies.

And no matter what Hollywood wants to say or do about it, it is only going to get more expensive. Not because the studios are charging more. But because they are putting more VFX into the films. The more your movie is greenscreened, the more expensive it's going to be. Animation films have historically cost 3 times more than any compatible live action movie. VFX movies are even more expensive.

Having said all this, does it really matter what dying franchise these big studios decide to revive? I mean, sure it's painful for people with any sense of taste, but there are tons of other interesting things being made. And frankly, tons of good movies go around unappreciated, so no wonder studios aren't pouring medium money into more interesting properties. Take Edge of Tomorrow for example. Great film, A-list actors, innovative and different. It didn't get noticed at all except by a select few. While I would as a picky consumer this is the kind of movie studios should be funding, as a studio executive, I would say that while the product was good the results aren't worth the effort.

In the end, it's going to come down to the consumers taking a stand. When people stop flocking to Avengers 15 or Transformers Infinity, then maybe other films can be made. After all, for all the expense of VFX, it's a lot cheaper to do that nowadays, so long as you know what you're doing.


----------



## Cli-Fi (Nov 12, 2017)

EJDeBrun said:


> Interesting. Since they are both media giants, it's unlikely anti-trust will get involved unless they end up with an over 50% share of the market. Given what's going on with Time-Warner on the otherside, it's really hard to say what would happen. I doubt the courts would stop it.



Seems like the cable news channels are what is getting in everyone's way. Time Warner can't merge with AT&T until they decide what to do with CNN. Fox can't merge with Disney with Fox News. It was mentioned that the Murdoch's (who own Fox) are looking at buying CNN. Essentially giving Disney, control of CNN! So that leaves Fox News the odd man out. Would Disney take the deal if it means getting to own two news orgs? Why is Disney more favorable to regulators than AT&T/Time Warner?


----------



## Cli-Fi (Nov 12, 2017)

EJDeBrun said:


> What I do find unforgivable is the fact that they're NOT willing to gamble the smaller budgets more. I think places like Disney can definitely afford to pay for a couple of $10mil productions every year. Productions that can even be based on other interesting pre-existing franchises. Obviously in the SFF genre, there's tons to work with, but the same could be said for mysteries and historical dramas (look at Downton Abbey or Outlander).



I see TV as the defacto media for a smaller budget franchise these days. All popular TV franchises cost $10+ Million to produce per season. Disney's streaming service is going to be a powerhouse because of all the properties they can play with and stretch out. They already announced a live action Star Wars TV series that will definitely tie into the movies. 

I would say the most popular movie studio doing something with smaller budget (though it's hit or miss) is Universal. I'm not too particularly thrilled with the Monster Universe and Warcraft did OK, but it's a smaller production budget than some of the super hero movies. Jurassic Park is obv as you already mentioned. They also make Despicable Me, Fast & Furious, Bourne, and to a lesser extent The Purge.


----------



## EJDeBrun (Nov 12, 2017)

Essentially it's about how many branches of industry they control. Time Warner owns large shares of content as well as how it's provided through AT&T cable/broadband. That is one industry too many (content production, and both parts of distribution), though why Comcast has been allowed to do the same thing previously is beyond me. Perhaps the block has to do with lessons they're learning from allowing Comcast to pretty much do what they want.

Disney, while it has a lot of branches, is still essentially an entertainment company. They own 0% share in boardband/cable distribution despite owning a large number of cable content. Earlier in the Disney Co.'s history, they did try to make a bid to start owning the actual theaters for their films but were blocked from making any purchases. Since then they've pretty much limited their business to producing content and distributing it. They don't deal with the actual cables that transmit the content and are therefore "safer" in terms of anti-trust.


----------



## KGeo777 (Nov 12, 2017)

The point I am making is that there is a big space between the tentpole aimed at Asia, and the slice of life aimed at Oscars, and the bottom of the mass media pyramid--the Asylum (the owners of which admit they deliberately make bad genre movies). There is certainly room for another independent producer like DeLaurentiis, James Carreras or James Nicholson or Charles Band. Or directors like Mario Bava or Amando de Ossorio. Just because it is not the 70s anymore doesn't mean that an audience-friendly film culture cannot exist again. 

In other words not every audience friendly genre film needs to have 700 plus shots of FX being done in India or Vancouver.

The big studio mentality has dominated for so long and squeezed out all other voices that people forget there has been alternatives to the monopoly before. How a viable business model develops is the question. I think it will have to be stable enough to allow those with merit to have some kind of professional support mechanism and market access.  It's too fluid right now with technological developments to speculate beyond that observation.


----------



## EJDeBrun (Nov 12, 2017)

Cli-Fi said:


> I see TV as the defacto media for a smaller budget franchise these days. All popular TV franchises cost $10+ Million to produce per season. Disney's streaming service is going to be a powerhouse because of all the properties they can play with and stretch out. They already announced a live action Star Wars TV series that will definitely tie into the movies.
> 
> I would say the most popular movie studio doing something with smaller budget (though it's hit or miss) is Universal. I'm not too particularly thrilled with the Monster Universe and Warcraft did OK, but it's a smaller production budget than some of the super hero movies. Jurassic Park is obv as you already mentioned. They also make Despicable Me, Fast & Furious, Bourne, and to a lesser extent The Purge.



Universal has been interesting. The Despicable Me stuff was done on a super budget through Illuminations and was farmed out across the world to be so cost effective. It really changed the game in animation (for random facts, Frozen was made the same way for Disney. So much for all that money spent in Emeryville)

Jurassic World wasn't cheap, wasn't expensive. Warcraft movie was primarily funded by Vivendi and specific for the Chinese market.

And yes, the consensus in general is that TV is where it's out for trying out new and interesting stuff. Having said that there's a whole band of directors headed by Christopher Nolan who are specifically trying to make films specifically for theaters that isn't the usual super hero fodder. I think we're just on a cusp of changes and new stuff will be coming out soon.


----------



## Cli-Fi (Nov 12, 2017)

EJDeBrun said:


> Essentially it's about how many branches of industry they control. Time Warner owns large shares of content as well as how it's provided through AT&T cable/broadband. That is one industry too many (content production, and both parts of distribution), though why Comcast has been allowed to do the same thing previously is beyond me. Perhaps the block has to do with lessons they're learning from allowing Comcast to pretty much do what they want.
> 
> Disney, while it has a lot of branches, is still essentially an entertainment company. They own 0% share in boardband/cable distribution despite owning a large number of cable content. Earlier in the Disney Co.'s history, they did try to make a bid to start owning the actual theaters for their films but were blocked from making any purchases. Since then they've pretty much limited their business to producing content and distributing it. They don't deal with the actual cables that transmit the content and are therefore "safer" in terms of anti-trust.



Ah I always thought that Netflix should have done something like that. Invest in or create their own broadband/cable network to set their content up on, instead of whining about fair treatment to politicians. Like Facebook and Google did. Disney has to make people aware of their service. CBS did it on a small scale with Star Trek, and that was only one franchise. It's going to be really exciting to see what they come up with. In the next couple of years Netflix could be doomed, or owned by the Mouse too!


----------



## Cli-Fi (Nov 12, 2017)

EJDeBrun said:


> And yes, the consensus in general is that TV is where it's out for trying out new and interesting stuff. Having said that there's a whole band of directors headed by Christopher Nolan who are specifically trying to make films specifically for theaters that isn't the usual super hero fodder. I think we're just on a cusp of changes and new stuff will be coming out soon.



Hopefully, I am a huge Nolan fan. I'll watch anything with his name on it, and his films tend to do well against whatever big budget movie comes out that he is competing against. I just see a lot more diversity in TV these days, some of the TV shows I watch would never make it as a movie. Although some movies like Limitless can make for good TV shows too!


----------



## EJDeBrun (Nov 12, 2017)

KGeo777: There is definitely room for more variety. My point is that there are purely economic reasons for why the industry is the way it is right now and those can't be ignored, but that doesn't mean I like the current state of things anymore than you do. It's a big reason why I left the industry in the first place. But I also don't think it's practical to pretend that companies can forgo profits for creativity, especially when it hasn't been paying. (EMOJI movie? REALLY?) Also audiences are obviously not ignoring the slew of other types of stories or all those eclectic TV shows wouldn't be finding their markets. Still, films are more costly and so studio heads are being more conservative. It'll change, but it will take time.

Cli-Fi: For such a big name director Nolan has been very active to try to bring the theater and IMAX format back to life and his thing is catching on. There's a whole band of them now and I think so long as people are willing to support them, I think things will turn around. I do like TV as a format though, especially the mini-series. I think part of the reason why film is falling flat is that you can only go so far in depth with the full breadth of a story with 90minutes to 3 hours. With TV, we as an audience have really gotten used to huge epics and that's simply not that easy to do with film. So I think there will be a lot more experimentation as the mediums evolve.


----------



## EJDeBrun (Nov 12, 2017)

Cli-Fi: I forgot to respond to your note about Netflix. I don't think they're big enough yet to do anything besides distribute their materials through their streaming service. There's no way they could break into the broadband market now.

And I guess Netflix would be the reason anyone would cite anti-trust laws in the first place. They're tiny compared to everyone else, but are making noteworthy content. This could also be why the courts are stopping the Time-Warner merger. Netflix wasn't nearly as competitive during the Comcast merger and with online streaming being such a new thing and not considered a distribution contender, it was much easier to ignore it. Lack of foresight.


----------



## KGeo777 (Nov 12, 2017)

EJDeBrun said:


> KGeo777: There is definitely room for more variety. My point is that there are purely economic reasons for why the industry is the way it is right now and those can't be ignored, but that doesn't mean I like the current state of things anymore than you do. It's a big reason why I left the industry in the first place. But I also don't think it's practical to pretend that companies can forgo profits for creativity, especially when it hasn't been paying. (EMOJI movie? REALLY?) Also audiences are obviously not ignoring the slew of other types of stories or all those eclectic TV shows wouldn't be finding their markets. Still, films are more costly and so studio heads are being more conservative. It'll change, but it will take time.


I think it will change when the management branches back out to include people from the same background as the audiences (like it used to be).

I don't foresee this happening with the current big 6 because they appear to be as myopic as Lovecraft said about New York publishing.

Recently a so-called "British" company released a film called the Limehouse Golem--experimental art house--with little audience appeal. It is described as British even though the director is from Florida. 
I am sure there are lots of qualified British directors and writers, but they simply do not get the chance because of the current elitism.
I am sure if another Hammer or AIP or Amicus in the old style comes along, people with talent will appear. 
It just needs to get out from under the current monopoly. 
Perhaps it will sooner than we know.


----------



## BAYLOR (Nov 12, 2017)

Cli-Fi said:


> Ah I always thought that Netflix should have done something like that. Invest in or create their own broadband/cable network to set their content up on, instead of whining about fair treatment to politicians. Like Facebook and Google did. Disney has to make people aware of their service. CBS did it on a small scale with Star Trek, and that was only one franchise. It's going to be really exciting to see what they come up with. In the next couple of years Netflix could be doomed, or owned by the Mouse too!



Id like to see  Christopher Nolan do a Star Wars film.


----------



## Cli-Fi (Nov 12, 2017)

BAYLOR said:


> Id like to see  Christopher Nolan do a Star Wars film.



I think Nolan has expressed his distaste for franchises. Well, at the very least Marvel, but he hasn't done a franchise since Batman, and I think that left a bad taste in his mouth. He comes across as a very creative guy who doesn't want to be tied down to one specific property, (it took him years to get away from Batman) which is why his name is now synonymous with Spielberg probably even greater than Abrams in some circles.


----------



## EJDeBrun (Nov 13, 2017)

Abrams is no way near as good as his reputation makes him out to be. Spielberg still makes good films but he's getting older and you can see it in his style.

Nolan has proven he doesn't need franchises so I don't think he will be doing anymore. This is a good thing.

As far as more "creative/independent" films coming to screens, well there are more companies branching out with money (I'm looking at you Amazon) and I think we're going to start getting more of those types of films (Last Flag Flying has big name actors and funded by Amazon).  All it takes is one person with money funding the right project to prove generic (for argument's sake, let's just say films connected to long-standing franchises) movies can make money and then the whole industry will shift again.


----------



## Cli-Fi (Nov 13, 2017)

EJDeBrun said:


> Abrams is no way near as good as his reputation makes him out to be. Spielberg still makes good films but he's getting older and you can see it in his style.
> 
> Nolan has proven he doesn't need franchises so I don't think he will be doing anymore. This is a good thing.
> 
> As far as more "creative/independent" films coming to screens, well there are more companies branching out with money (I'm looking at you Amazon) and I think we're going to start getting more of those types of films (Last Flag Flying has big name actors and funded by Amazon).  All it takes is one person with money funding the right project to prove generic (for argument's sake, let's just say films connected to long-standing franchises) movies can make money and then the whole industry will shift again.



Some of the trailer I see advertised on social media can break through like Get Out, Split, The Shallows Etc... those roughly had $5-20 million budget but they made back 10+X their money. It's all about reaching out and sending the right message though. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't.


----------



## KGeo777 (Nov 13, 2017)

Get Out was much like the Blair Witch Project in that it probably spent far more on marketing than the film cost to make (it came out later that Artisan spent a lot on fake user comments to create buzz). It also advertised itself as "ideologically important" which is not usually how low budget horror movies advertise themselves.While Night of the Living Dead also claimed a sociological message, this was not the main selling point for the film in 1968. And its reputation took time to develop--Get Out was "an instant classic" at least according to the paid marketing. 

This is why Blumhouse doesn't seem like a revitalization of the low budget horror film to me. Not enough audience involvement in deciding what is popular. Dog Soldiers was an example of a film that drew a  lot of attention but mostly after it was released which is normally the way these things go when its popularity is decided by audiences, not marketers.  And wouldnt you know it, made entirely outside the Hollywood system unlike Get Out, the Shallows etc.


----------



## EJDeBrun (Nov 13, 2017)

Just to clarify, I don't think getting 100% out of the studio system is going to automatically lead to success. Yes, you might be able to try new things, but your means will be limited. Sure that can foster a certain amount of creativity, but then you run into issues of distribution, marketing etc etc.

The reality is that creatives have to prove that their work is better than the slog that the big studios are churning out. If they can do that, then they can shift the trends and open doors for others.

And just to be clear, I don't think just because someone is an "independent" means that their work is automatically good. If anything, more often than not, I find the movies boring. That's not to say great ones can't come about (as previously cited already) just, they are usually pretty dull.

The issue right now is more about what's trending than anything else. There's just a glut in the market for "superhero movies" and a bunch of other things. But no one's found that "right" property to shift the trend either.


----------



## KGeo777 (Nov 13, 2017)

I think we can say there is a healthy western film industry again when the middle reappears. Films that are much cheaper than $200 million but not as badly made as something by the Asylum or Sy-Fy. 

The technology is there, its not a tech problem. It seems to be entirely due to a lack of investor money -distribution and market access (the reasons for that is up for some debate--monopoly, technological change, public apathy, other..).  I have seen a movie studio described as "a pimple on the ass of a giant corporation" so the assumption is that they have so much money, they can subsidize film based on their other holdings (and despite that-they get governments to give them tax money to film in their locations). 

The current focus on superheroes, remakes, zombies, sharks, it feels like a phase of thematic cannibalization. I don't see it as an audience-defined process. The studios are deciding what to make, then the audiences either watch them or not. If it is true that the film studios are a pimple, then how can they lose money or be affected by public response? Art is one of those things that works best when it is more "grassroots," and not being decided in a board room on Wall Street like it seems to be at present.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Dec 21, 2017)

Something I've seen a lot of comment on is that Disney will now have rights to the X-Men, Fantastic Four, and Deadpool for the Marvel Cinematic Universe ...


----------



## Judderman (Dec 22, 2017)

KGeo777 said:


> In Canada which has had feeble media forever, there are a few soda companies of Canadian origin. How on earth can they stay in business? One would think that the big companies like Coca-Cola would drive them out of business but no--they have market access. Either Coca-Cola management doesn't care, or the Canadian government offers some protection to these Canadian start-ups. The question then has to be asked, why is media treated differently?
> This can be asked of Canada, the US, England, etc.


That may be that people are quite patriotic about certain products if they can get that initial foothold and known for quality or something distincitve. Also with local bands/musicians. Doesn't seem to apply to technology. While with movies it is often more about what gets you more excited via trailers and chat, and/or what has the big budget. Hollywood's forte.


----------



## BAYLOR (Dec 22, 2017)

KGeo777 said:


> I think we can say there is a healthy western film industry again when the middle reappears. Films that are much cheaper than $200 million but not as badly made as something by the Asylum or Sy-Fy.
> 
> The technology is there, its not a tech problem. It seems to be entirely due to a lack of investor money -distribution and market access (the reasons for that is up for some debate--monopoly, technological change, public apathy, other..).  I have seen a movie studio described as "a pimple on the ass of a giant corporation" so the assumption is that they have so much money, they can subsidize film based on their other holdings (and despite that-they get governments to give them tax money to film in their locations).
> 
> The current focus on superheroes, remakes, zombies, sharks, it feels like a phase of thematic cannibalization. I don't see it as an audience-defined process. The studios are deciding what to make, then the audiences either watch them or not. If it is true that the film studios are a pimple, then how can they lose money or be affected by public response? Art is one of those things that works best when it is more "grassroots," and not being decided in a board room on Wall Street like it seems to be at present.



With so many entertainment venue choices , the studios might want to change their approach or they may find their cinema business is going to start to fade. Why pay 10 bucks or more  to see a mediocre cinema reboot /remake/sequel ? All you have to do is wait for it to come on television.


----------



## KGeo777 (Dec 22, 2017)

Judderman said:


> Also with local bands/musicians. Doesn't seem to apply to technology.



Yeah books and film are technologically portable. Music and other live performance is different, especially if the bands or persons are locally known.


----------

