DeeCee Posted March 20, 2019 Author Share Posted March 20, 2019 It is done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
filmlover Posted March 20, 2019 Share Posted March 20, 2019 Just posted this in the Classic Convo thread but will share it here too: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Reynolds Posted March 21, 2019 Share Posted March 21, 2019 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raulbalarezo Posted March 21, 2019 Share Posted March 21, 2019 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Ryan Reynolds said: And some people were saying the deal was something to celebrate about. Edited March 21, 2019 by raulbalarezo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium George Posted March 21, 2019 Share Posted March 21, 2019 Lay offs have started. This whole thread is about that. Domestic distribution chief Chris Aronson among those laid off at #Fox today. https://t.co/V6hgF543ia — Brent Lang (@BrentALang) March 21, 2019 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Macleod Posted March 21, 2019 Share Posted March 21, 2019 (edited) Was just going to mention the FOX 2000 loss. One of the first of many "surprises" I think... Chalk one more up for corporate feels over mid-budget individualized voices in filmmaking. So boring and predictable. Where does it end? Can the government step in before Disney swallows existence whole? It's too late...it was knowing ya, American films... Edited March 21, 2019 by Macleod Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terrestrial Posted March 21, 2019 Share Posted March 21, 2019 (edited) So, after reading through the Deadline article, and some other outlets it looks like: not one of her people got the slip they do not now if she will stay in another capacity or not all open projects of FOX 2000 are 'expected' to get finalised still Some high ranking FOX manager already got the slip, e.g. domestic distriution boss, the sales manager (was #2 to the distribution guy if I understand that part right) 20th TV boss WW Film marketing boss a veteran consumer products executive International film distribution boss Chief Content Officer Out of ~ 215.000 people working for Disney / VOX ww, ~ 4.000 are expected to get laid off, mostly redundant positions, like in distribution. Thas would be actually less than I expected Edited March 21, 2019 by terrestrial 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terrestrial Posted March 22, 2019 Share Posted March 22, 2019 I am reposting this here, there sems to be a 2nd thread similar in parts with this one layoffs: Quote 0th Century Fox domestic distribution president Chris Aronson; international distribution head Andrew Cripps; consumer products chief Jim Fielding; EVP Corporate Communications Dan Berger; Heather Phillips, EVP and head of domestic publicity; Mike Dunn, president of product strategy and consumer business development; Bob Cohen, EVP Legal Affairs and EVP Fox Stage Productions; and Michelle Marks, SVP Media Promotions. actual heads of.... reporting to Horn: Quote · 20th Cent Fox will continue to be led by Vice Chairman, 20th Cent Fox Film, and President, Production, 20th Cent Fox, Emma Watts. · Fox Family will continue to be led by President Vanessa Morrison, reporting directly to Watts. · Fox Searchlight Pictures will continue to be led by Chairmen Nancy Utley and Stephen Gilula. · Fox 2000 will continue to be led by President of Production Elizabeth Gabler, overseeing the completion of the current slate. · Fox Animation (including Blue Sky Studios) will continue to be led by Co-Presidents Andrea Miloro and Robert Baird. · Walt Disney Animation Studios will continue to be led by Chief Creative Officer Jennifer Lee. · Walt Disney Studios Motion Picture Production (Disney live action) will continue to be led by President Sean Bailey. · Pixar Animation Studios will continue to be led by Chief Creative Officer Pete Docter. · Marvel Studios will continue to be led by President Kevin Feige and Co-President Louis D’Esposito. · Lucasfilm will continue to be led by President Kathleen Kennedy. · Disney Music Group will continue to be led by President Ken Bunt. · Disney Theatrical Group will continue to be led by President & Producer Thomas Schumacher. · Walt Disney Studios Communications will be led by Senior Vice President Paul Roeder. · Walt Disney Studios Human Resources will be led by Senior Vice President Carolyn Wilson. So, one earlier news detail was wrongly worded or a click-bait, or premature..., Elizabeth Galer did not get a 'slip', but the announcement FOX 2000 wont continue lafter their actual movies are finished. But there is still no word what will happen with her nor the staff at FOX 2000 after that. = all is possible, from closing down and fire them all,.... up to to get complete included into something existing/reformed/newly created.... at Disney. Or something in between, a mix. For now, in my POV, its only clear there will be no FOX 2000 as a name and separate entity anymore. Forgot to post this in the other thread actual heads of.... reporting to Bergman: Quote · Walt Disney Studios Marketing will be led by President Asad Ayaz. · Walt Disney Studios Distribution, Franchise Management, and Business & Audience Insights will be led by President Cathleen Taff. · Walt Disney Studios Operations will be led by President Jeff Miller. · Walt Disney Studios Business Affairs will be led by Executive Vice President Bernardine Brandis. · Steve Bardwil will lead Walt Disney Studios Legal Affairs as Chief Counsel. · Paul Shurgot will lead Walt Disney Studios Finance as Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer. · Jamie Voris will lead Walt Disney Studios Technology as Senior Vice President and Chief Technology Officer. · Walt Disney Studios Labor Relations will be led by Senior Vice President Robert Johnson. · Also continuing to report to Bergman are Walt Disney Animation Studios President Andrew Millstein and Pixar Animation Studios President Jim Morris. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lilmac Posted March 24, 2019 Share Posted March 24, 2019 Bring on the X-Men! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That One Girl Posted April 24, 2019 Share Posted April 24, 2019 Remember when people tried to argue that Fox would run without any interference from Disney? lol https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/amp/news/multiple-fox-films-getting-axed-at-disney-1204252 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4815162342 Posted April 24, 2019 Share Posted April 24, 2019 11 minutes ago, That One Guy said: Remember when people tried to argue that Fox would run without any interference from Disney? lol https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/amp/news/multiple-fox-films-getting-axed-at-disney-1204252 Fake news TOG, posters here said Disney disemboweling Fox would be good for cinema. They couldn't possibly have been talking out their butts, could they? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barnack Posted April 24, 2019 Share Posted April 24, 2019 5 minutes ago, That One Guy said: Remember when people tried to argue that Fox would run without any interference from Disney? lol https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/amp/news/multiple-fox-films-getting-axed-at-disney-1204252 One source says Disney film chief Alan Horn is questioning the apparent plan to have young characters smoking onscreen in West Side Story. And that on a Spielberg movie for something incredibly mild, imagine the level on non powerful name projects or what could pass for controversial if showing people smoking (in an era that over 60% of the male population did it) is a big deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terrestrial Posted April 24, 2019 Share Posted April 24, 2019 Not sure why ppl react so strongly to those kind of news, had no one here ever observed a merger before that? I am still not a fan btw. 37 minutes ago, That One Guy said: Remember when people tried to argue that Fox would run without any interference from Disney? lol https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/amp/news/multiple-fox-films-getting-axed-at-disney-1204252 Quote ....has jettisoned a number of Fox projects from his development and preproduction slate, including the $170 million tentpole Mouse Guard, the Tom Hanks starrer News of the World (to Universal) and an adaptation of Angie Thomas' best-seller On the Come Up (to Paramount). Also poised for curbside pickup, The Hollywood Reporter has learned, is Ted Melfi's mental-hospital-set dramedy Fruit Loops, which has Woody Harrelson starring (that project is still officially in the Disney fold but likely will be put in turnaround). Three of the four films came from Elizabeth Gabler's now-shuttered Fox 2000 division (Mouse Guard being the exception). Insiders say Disney is simply culling the enormous influx of projects. Mouse Guard, which was poised for a May start date, was said to be too expensive for a nonfranchise film. As for why On the Come Up didn’t make the cut, a source says Thomas’ last project, The Hate U Give, lost $30 million-$40 million despite a modest $23 million budget and a marketing spend believed to be about $30 million. Meanwhile, a number of movies greenlit in late December and early January by Fox film president Emma Watts, who made the transition to Disney, are moving forward. Those include the Matthew Vaughn-directed Kingsman prequel The Great Game, the low-budget witchcraft pic Fear Street and Steven Spielberg's West Side Story. Likely shooting in the fall is Free Guy — a Shawn Levy-Ryan Reynolds collaboration — and Agatha Christie's Death on the Nile. One Fox film that won't be questioned is Avatar 2, which finished shooting April 18. But even some of those green lights are being met with scrutiny. One source says Disney film chief Alan Horn is questioning the apparent plan to have young characters smoking onscreen in West Side Story. "With Fox, we can make movies that right now I say no to ... We always have to think about the smoking policy. The audience for a Disney movie may not know what they are going to see, but they know what they aren't going to see," Horn said in a recent interview with THR. "There are certain things we just can't include because we'll get letters." Despite Mouse Guard now being shopped to other studios, Watts' group is not being asked to make lower-priced movies, says a source. Rather, she is being tasked with making larger all-audience PG-13 and R-rated films. Look for domestic terrorism thriller The Ballad of Richard Jewell — about the security guard at the center of the 1996 Atlanta Olympics bombing — to be among the first Fox greenlights, possibly with Clint Eastwood directing. "We are now just only beginning to see how all this consolidation will change how movies get greenlit and made," says a producer involved with a Fox-developed movie. "They are looking at everything." Scott MendelsonVerified account @ScottMendelson 2h2 hours ago More Every Fox movie that has been "axed" by Disney is a prime example of the kind of movie that will struggle to get made at the studio level precisely because general audiences no longer make a point to see them in theaters. This is the end result of not voting with you wallet. 23 minutes ago, Barnack said: And that on a Spielberg movie for something incredibly mild, imagine the level on non powerful name projects or what could pass for controversial if showing people smoking (in an era that over 60% of the male population did it) is a big deal. But there is no need to include them only bcs then so many smoked.... where is the artistic need for those? Its not about a cancer survivor. If thinking that way we would still have way more bias/clich'e movies. When something is not good to push for (see bias about religions, nations, gender,...) then why try to include that? And that is a theme I actually care for, cinema had tins of cigarette advertisement, a man was a man when smoking §$%&%$§, cinema has a lot to make up for in that regard. = badly chosen example in my POV Mor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barnack Posted April 24, 2019 Share Posted April 24, 2019 24 minutes ago, terrestrial said: But there is no need to include them only bcs then so many smoked.... where is the artistic need for those? Its not about a cancer survivor. If thinking that way we would still have way more bias/clich'e movies. When something is not good to push for (see bias about religions, nations, gender,...) then why try to include that? I am not sure if you are particularly serious, do we want artist starting to specially care if something is good or not too push ? Has for artistic need, I would imagine people that lived through the era, would make it look false to have zero gang members smoking, a bit like Mad Men without anyone smoking/drinking, has for the artistic need for it, that an very hard question to answer except for Spielberg( and why ask it to anyone else ?), specially without having read the script and the production design. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terrestrial Posted April 24, 2019 Share Posted April 24, 2019 6 minutes ago, Barnack said: I am not sure if you are particularly serious, do we want artist starting to specially care if something is good or not too push ? Has for artistic need, I would imagine people that lived through the era, would make it look false to have zero gang members smoking, a bit like Mad Men without anyone smoking/drinking, has for the artistic need for it, that an very hard question to answer except for Spielberg( and why ask it to anyone else ?), specially without having read the script and the production design. That is a bit strange reasoning in my POV or I do nor understand something correctly 1. not a lot of ppl living then are still alive, especially out of the then YA or older generation. Kids then,... nope. 2. lets take a bad example of behaviour: there was a time all PoC were presented as criminals, not trustworthy, partly even stupid/badly educated. Why include something like that in a remake? Artists too have the ability to learn,... and a responsibility for more than only their artistic goal to a degree also. beside: that's not a low-budget movie, even big-name creative are used to interference by the money giver's people. Like them cutting the child of the king's sister out of the movie because... she killed her young son as he too got the same illness her brother (king) suffered from for such a long time. Also cut out was the whole background why Balian was an experienced ~ master in defending castles and such, and not only a smith like the remaining scenes implied. And lots of other scenes. Director Ridley Scott.... title Kingdom of Heaven. A lot got cut. Its a cooperation, why ignore the reality of the business? And again, only bcs a very few might think that looks not 'real', the most should be able to use their brain for the whys. If they even realise it, after watching for so many years cigarette free / low ... they should be used to it since a long time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barnack Posted April 24, 2019 Share Posted April 24, 2019 (edited) 58 minutes ago, terrestrial said: 1. not a lot of ppl living then are still alive, especially out of the then YA or older generation. Kids then,... nope. The late 50s era wasn't that long ago, it was 60 ish year's ago, the artist making the movies did live then and over 45 million that were born when the first one released are still alive today, in term target audience % it is probably a really good share. And it is not like people born in the 60s/70s do not have a good idea of that era (or grew in something much different in that regard) 58 minutes ago, terrestrial said: there was a time all PoC were presented as criminals, not trustworthy, partly even stupid/badly educated. Why include something like that in a remake? Now imagine if Disney would push to never have criminal/stupid/uneducated POC in their movies (like having no one ever smoking even when set in the 60s) for a better equivalent of a zero smoking policy. That would be ridiculous limitation of what POC can do and limit the quality of their roles and limit the quality of movies featuring them. Smoking in western culture particularly of the era is linked to a lot of elements (like you said marketing linked it to masculinity, freedom, the west, adventure, rebellion and conservatism, etc... to push the sales), so having a character smoking and not smoking can be used to communicate something about the character to the audience, presence of smoke can make for nice photography and set design and again just to not ring false to the older audience (the Spielberg audience is quite old). Edited April 24, 2019 by Barnack Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terrestrial Posted April 24, 2019 Share Posted April 24, 2019 7 minutes ago, Barnack said: - snip - To be born in that time,... nope. In no way I miss what I have seen in my childhood then. I said YA or older then for a reason. The book got written latest in the '50, released in 1957. The story is about ~ YA living then, The movie got released in 1961 To be aware about smoking then, and still remembering about how many/how normal or not it was for whom, a chance to even care about it, at least an end teen then. That's 75/77 years or older now. Its like you imply we older people are not able to adjust to later days. We are not senile. Yet 😉 You react stronger to what is/was normal the last 20 years than to what was, as you were 20y old. For me it was normal to have people sitting in a restaurant smoking. That is over since a long time, I am used to that now, I wont miss it in a movie from earlier times, like at all. If it would be part of the story, like I earlier gave the example, see cancer,... But it is a remake of a story we all know has nothing in it that required any of them to smoke, there is no 'problem' involved circling about that theme. = I see no reason at all to add smoking into it for artistic reasons. At all. I'd see it as ignorant to today*s POV if they tried to add it. Why that should even a problematic detail in a musical remake, I have really no idea where this is coming from. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barnack Posted April 24, 2019 Share Posted April 24, 2019 (edited) 11 minutes ago, terrestrial said: To be born in that time,... nope. In no way I miss what I have seen in my childhood then. I am not sure why that would be relevant too. Why even bring someone personal preference in that subject. Chance are good that people making a movie about that time and decide to watch want to immerse themselves in that era (just make the remake in a different world / time otherwise). I am not so sure why would we would bring much consideration for the particular individual taste of one person (yours) in that extremely broad subject. 11 minutes ago, terrestrial said: = I see no reason at all to add smoking into it for artistic reasons. At all. I'd see it as ignorant to today*s POV if they tried to add it. Why that should even a problematic detail in a musical remake, I have really no idea where this is coming from. What is your take on MadMen featuring people smoking and drinking ? (And that was the best ads and biggest boost in sales Cigarettes company say in modern time I think). 11 minutes ago, terrestrial said: To be aware about smoking then, and still remembering about how many/how normal or not it was for whom, a chance to even care about it, at least an end teen then. That's 75/77 years or older now. Well I imagine every young kids from WW2 to the late 70s would know. And even most kids today, they are not that stupid/clueless. Edited April 24, 2019 by Barnack Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terrestrial Posted April 24, 2019 Share Posted April 24, 2019 3 minutes ago, Barnack said: I am not sure why that would be relevant too. Why even bring someone personal preference in that subject. Chance are good that people making a movie about that time and decide to watch want to immerse themselves in that era (just make the remake in a different world / time otherwise). I am not so sure why would we would bring much consideration for the particular individual taste of one person (yours) in that extremely broad subject. What is your take on MadMen featuring people smoking and drinking ? (And that was the best ads and biggest boost in sales Cigarettes company say in modern time I think). Well I imagine every young kids from WW2 to the late 70s would know. And even most kids today, they are not that stupid/clueless. Sometimes I feel like you do not want to consider another POV or miss the bigger picture or whatever the reason is. Why do you assume that is an only me POV? As much older you get as stranger can sitting around themes get, in the sum there can be a lot of impressions. I actually discuss a lot with people of my generation and older as far as still alive. I was mostly always one of the youngest in our circle of friends for some reasons (several). My father fought in WW II, my father-in-law fought in WW I. Late '70,... yes they know ppl smoked then too. But not that the split between smokers and non-smokers in the '50 was another than later. Not like they would feel something is missing for ppl not smoking. And again: its fairly typical for a long time to exclude smoking in filmed material. Means not without exception, but enough to be used to not miss it on screen. So why should they? Awareness means not a that liiittle detail has to be in to feel right. In a musical! This movie is not the first one set in a past me or friends/relatives lived in. You might be aware about free love and such in the '60/'70? A lot of us older ones do not feel as repressed as the younger generations often appear to us to be. But we got so used to that, when a movie includes that for reasons, the majority feels for a time like something is wrong I do not know, did you happen to have watched We Own the Night? There are some scenes included, where we felt that watching it. And as said, I love to discuss with my people (and my pupils) a lot. It took us some time till we realised why the majority felt ~ nearly uncomfortable: we were not used to it anymore, for the ~ 20 years I used in the example at least. There is a reason for that number. Its the conclusion we found then as a rough rule of thumb. When is the present more normal than the past. What we were not used to anymore were two things: the drug use / smoking /... theme. And the partly rather direct way to show sexual heating up, petting,... Btw, that was the first details we finally realised, it was even funny how long it took to get the why. And for that movie both not-often-seen-anymore themes included make perfectly sense I still have no problems with porn,... but generally wont expect it in a movie about crime in NY at first. You were the one who brought up that older people might miss it, even might need it to immerse. To that I reacted. Why now bring in young ones? All this has nothing to do with that that story has no need for cigarettes. It is not about a druggie, not about a cancer patient who has to deal with the consequences, or whatever reason... Hmmm yes there is even an action/fantasy/CBM one, were it perfectly makes sense to include the smoking: Constantine. That character is a short time before dying for having smoked so much. And still fight against the devil.... who will get his soul for something that he did as a youth. To exclude the smoking there, that would be not making sense. To get so echauffiert about the potential restriction a director gets, when he/she can use a lot of other markers to get the teen-coolness visual... Reminds me to another detail: depending on the decade, there are a lot of movies where you wont see a respectable woman smoke beside them smoking in RL too. It was not 'correct' to show that, do you really believe then ppl also would have reacted so strongly for not getting to include that? It was the POV of the time, like it is the POV of today, if the story does not warrant it, no need to include something unhealthy like that now, even if for other reasons than then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeCee Posted May 14, 2019 Author Share Posted May 14, 2019 And there it is. Hulu. https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2019/05/disney-takes-full-control-of-hulu-as-comcast-steps-aside/ 1 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...