|
|
Post by fitzoliverj on Dec 9, 2017 15:24:38 GMT
Does anybody know?
It's true that Disney are not proposing to buy *all* of Fox, but I presume TV shows like this would be included in the package. Quite a lot of the stuff that Disney would be taking on are not awfully Disney-esque - "Alien", for example - or are otherwise properties that they might be expected to separately divest - the 1960s Batman series probably ought not to be controlled by the same people as Marvel.
Might the Beeb be offered the chance to acquire the elements of the TVM they don't solely own? It's not as if the characters of Grace or Chang Lee have any value to anybody else (and, unlike the situation with the X-Men, nobody wants to see Bruce the Ambulanceman join the Avengers. At least, not till after he got that snake in him).
|
|
|
|
Post by Audio Watchdog on Dec 9, 2017 16:29:18 GMT
Wasn't Universal also a producer on the TV movie?
|
|
|
|
Post by mark687 on Dec 9, 2017 16:31:55 GMT
Wasn't Universal also a producer on the TV movie? Yes which is another reason why they cant be used I believe
Regards
mark687
|
|
|
|
Post by jasonward on Dec 9, 2017 17:18:04 GMT
Does anybody know? It's true that Disney are not proposing to buy *all* of Fox, but I presume TV shows like this would be included in the package. Quite a lot of the stuff that Disney would be taking on are not awfully Disney-esque - "Alien", for example - or are otherwise properties that they might be expected to separately divest - the 1960s Batman series probably ought not to be controlled by the same people as Marvel. Might the Beeb be offered the chance to acquire the elements of the TVM they don't solely own? It's not as if the characters of Grace or Chang Lee have any value to anybody else (and, unlike the situation with the X-Men, nobody wants to see Bruce the Ambulanceman join the Avengers. At least, not till after he got that snake in him). All I expect it means, is that the rights will become an even smaller even more obscure right issue that no one at Disney will care about, unless that is to sue someone. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2017 8:43:20 GMT
Does anybody know? It's true that Disney are not proposing to buy *all* of Fox, but I presume TV shows like this would be included in the package. Quite a lot of the stuff that Disney would be taking on are not awfully Disney-esque - "Alien", for example - or are otherwise properties that they might be expected to separately divest - the 1960s Batman series probably ought not to be controlled by the same people as Marvel. Might the Beeb be offered the chance to acquire the elements of the TVM they don't solely own? It's not as if the characters of Grace or Chang Lee have any value to anybody else (and, unlike the situation with the X-Men, nobody wants to see Bruce the Ambulanceman join the Avengers. At least, not till after he got that snake in him). All I expect it means, is that the rights will become an even smaller even more obscure right issue that no one at Disney will care about, unless that is to sue someone. As much as I love Disney, I think it's pretty much a given deal that Big Finish will NEVER get access to these characters now. Disney isn't going to do anything but charge top dollar. Which is a shame because I really want to see what Big Finish could do with Charlie Sato. I doubt we're ever going to see the characters elsewhere and it wouldn't surprise me if there was an issue with future reprints with stories featuring Grace. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2017 18:23:49 GMT
Does anybody know? It's true that Disney are not proposing to buy *all* of Fox, but I presume TV shows like this would be included in the package. Quite a lot of the stuff that Disney would be taking on are not awfully Disney-esque - "Alien", for example - or are otherwise properties that they might be expected to separately divest - the 1960s Batman series probably ought not to be controlled by the same people as Marvel. Disney doesn't release everything under the Disney banner, though. They have different distributors for different types of movies. Disney owned Mirimax when they released Pulp Fiction in 1994 and Bueana Visita Pictures released The Sixth Sense in 1996, none of which are particularly Disneyesque  I'm not sure if there's really anywhere left for the franchise to go at this point after Conevant, though. It's pretty much done now. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 25, 2017 7:09:58 GMT
The last movie Disney released under one of its subsidiaries that had an r-rating (in the US) was Apocalypto, back in 2006. After that they either sold off or re-purposed all of their sub-studios, and have released not a single film of any type with anything greater than a pg-13 rating since. So there are legitimate concerns about what may happen to some of the more adult properties that will now be under Disney control, and whether they will be either left to rot on a shelf (figuratively speaking), or given the Disney general audience friendly pg-13 makeover.
So what happened decades ago under completely different management with the likes of Pulp Fiction is only indicative of what they used to do once upon a time, many, many years ago, and what they have been doing for the last decade under the current management seems to me far more likely an indicator of what they may do with the Fox properties they have acquired and decide to keep. I mean short term they'll have no other choice but to complete current Fox contracts and productions, as originally agreed, so things like Deadpool 2 should be safe as originally envisioned. But anything put into production post sale I would imagine might be a very different case indeed.
Hope I'm wrong, but we'll see...
|
|
|
|
Post by Audio Watchdog on Dec 25, 2017 14:15:29 GMT
I would imagine Disney will want to keep the Fox Searchlight brand active but I could be wrong.
|
|
