criterionforum.org

And more distressing rumors are afoot. There were more merger-related layoffs at 20th Fox just a day or so ago, many from their home video department. The word online is that repertory theaters are being told that Fox titles will no longer be made available to them. And just yesterday I heard from a European home video executive, that Fox is no longer licensing its films to him. Is that policy the same for other vendors? Placing paranoia aside, we can figure out for ourselves that Disney isn’t plotting to rake in millions by making Sonja Henie musicals and other Fox oldies only available via its streaming site. The launch of Disney’s streaming platform is revolving around its new Marvel and Star Wars TV series.

Just the same, this might indeed be the beginning of the strangling of hard media, which the big companies have been treating like a necessary irritant for at least ten years. An unanswered question here is, how will this impact MGM discs, when Disney inherits Fox’s home video distribution contract? Already we have Netflix, that seems to purposely not make discs of many of its shows. The choice seems to be hit and miss. The first seasons of the Netflix Marvel shows Daredevil, Jessica Jones and Luke Cage eventually made it to Blu-ray in the U.S., but no sign of the second or third seasons, and no sign of Iron Fist, The Punisher or The Defenders. (Some of these have been released on disc overseas.) The Netflix Lost in Space reboot has also appeared on disc. But no sign whatsoever of Roma, The Ballad of Buster Skruggs, Okja, etc. on disc.

I think this is definitely the ‘disruptive’ mode of marketing that happens when a broad field of providers dwindles down to a few behemoth companies — the biggest power no longer just competes on the level of products, it uses its heft to demolish all other competing delivery systems. The idea is to make theaters kowtow to studio demands, and to eliminate most discs. Why go to all the trouble of making a product, when you can instead sell limited access from the web? For the consumer, it may eventually come down to a choice of subscribing to ten different streaming companies, or nothing. What’s available will be at the whim of corporate overseers.

We used to say that movies have lives of their own, but the streaming model may make most of them less accessible than ever. Netflix wiped out Blockbuster with its mail-rent system, and then dropped all but a few of its deep library, both for hard rental, and then on its streaming site. Just think, it will be just like before home video: movies will distributed or withheld, and changed as deemed fit — without our being informed. Hundreds of Fox movies from the 1930s that are already difficult to see, will be shoved deeper into storage, because the corporate committees will deem them to have insufficient profitability to be made available. And since we’ll have nothing permanent in our hands with which to compare an altered presentation, we’ll have to accept the ‘intellectual rights holder’s’ version of the truth. You know, like the ‘rumor’ that there ever was a movie simply called Star Wars, without the ‘Episode IV: A New Hope’ alterations.

With that in mind, the CineSavant office contains twenty years’ worth of older Fox DVDs and Blu-rays of variable quality. They may suddenly jump in value!

But I’d rather that those discs were not about to become rare, that they will instead continue to be readily available to be owned.

Thanks for your reportage Mr. Hunt.

And thanks for reading! — Glenn Erickson

soundchaser wrote: Fri Jan 17, 2020 6:20 pm Not sure where else to post this: Disney is dropping the “Fox” branding entirely going forward.

domino harvey wrote: Fri Jan 17, 2020 6:34 pm

soundchaser wrote: Fri Jan 17, 2020 6:20 pm Not sure where else to post this: Disney is dropping the “Fox” branding entirely going forward.

Jesus

Disney wrote:We would prefer you say "Walt"

movielocke wrote: Fri Jan 17, 2020 7:42 pmAlso in an update on the repertory holdings, the American cinematheque has a lot of Fox films scheduled right now.

senseabove wrote: Fri Jan 17, 2020 11:06 pm

movielocke wrote: Fri Jan 17, 2020 7:42 pmAlso in an update on the repertory holdings, the American cinematheque has a lot of Fox films scheduled right now.

As far as I understood it, non-profit/academic rep theaters were always safe(r) under the new stipulations, so the AC probably isn't a good barometer. It's theaters that do a mix of first-run and rep not being allowed to show Fox/Disney rep titles anymore that was the issue, e.g. someone that wanted to show Die Hard on Christmas Eve and Frozen II the rest of the week. The notable counter-evidence for that that I've seen, though, is the Castro in San Francisco, which has been playing a steady mixture of rep and current Disney/Fox releases, but my suspicion is that they pull in a significant enough amount of money for Disney with their sing-a-long matinees that Disney might be more willing to work with them...

Altair wrote: Sun Jan 19, 2020 2:38 am It actually looks pretty cool to me - but will Disney be actively using the '20th Century Pictures' branding going forward to many new films? Or will they just mainly keep it for legacy properties?

Brian C wrote: Wed Jan 29, 2020 2:18 am FWIW - and I have no idea how meaningful it is one way or the other - I saw a 35mm print of PORTRAIT OF JENNIE last night that was credited to the Walt Disney Co.