Can you explain why it is a favourite, is it just the films they happen to have made a lot of films you enjoy? It's just I struggle with why people are attached to big corporations like this that have no particular universal style. If someone said for example they like Studio Ghibli I can understand that. Or something like the MGM Musicals. Their films share a common style and atmosphere. You could also say the same about certain record labels like Atlantic, Motown, Stax, Factory etc. But a big corporate entity like Fox just churns out all types and genres of films that really have nothing in common. So why should I care who owns Fox, as an artistic entity they mean nothing to me. Indeed Rupert Murdoch is a pretty horrible person all round, I can't see why people are getting upset about Fox changing ownership from one horrible person to Disney. It's not as if it was owned by anyone we could care about. Job losses are always horrible but apart from that I really don't get why people are so upset about this. Indeed look how great Disney has handled the Marvel Universe and I don't see any drop in quality in Pixar.
I feel sorry for all producers and writers and directors.. Especially Blue sky who created Ice Age.. My feeling he should start a new company And leave fox / disney behind.. which a lot people may do. down the road.
It's also interesting to note that Disney now owns all the rights to Jim Cameron's Avatar and all the sequels, which could be a difficult road to hoe... Bob Iger and James Cameron: Can the King of Hollywood Manage the King of the World?
Indeed, hoeing a road is extremely difficult. Hoeing a row, much less so. Nevertheless, I don't like this one bit! Disney needs to be broken up.
At least it's not a ho on a road. In related news... Fox Studio Quickly Fades Away as Disney Starts Work on Integration
Perhaps Avatar will work as an animated cartoon then and we don't have to endure 5 blooming sequels. Or hopefully Cameron and Disney will fall out altogether and they never make another Avatar film. Fingers crossed.
I don't think your statement is correct, Cameron (Lightstorm) owns the Avatar property in much the same way that Lucas owned Star Wars before they bought him out. 20th Century Fox is the studio that Cameron has been working with forever, that might change in the future who knows. Disney is committed to the first two Avatar sequels beyond that?
That's not happening, they just added another member to the live cast today. 'Avatar' Sequels Cast 'Game of Thrones' Actor Brendan Cowell MARCH 28, 2019 9:56am PT by Aaron Couch 'Avatar' Sequels Cast 'Game of Thrones' Actor Brendan Cowell The actor will play a captain on a marine hunting vessel. Filmmaker James Cameron's upcoming Avatar sequels have a new recruit. Brendan Cowell, who appeared in the seventh season of HBO's Game of Thrones, has joined the franchise. Cowell will be playing Mick Scoresby, who captains a private-sector marine hunting vessel on the planet of Pandora. Cowell appeared as Harrag on the previous season of Game of Thrones in which his Ironborn character served as a thorn in the side of Theon Greyjoy (Alfie Allen). The Australian actor is also known for a number of other TV credits, including The Slap and Love My Way. "Jim and I are thrilled to welcome Brendan to the 'Avatar' family and know that he will bring a great depth to the character of Mick Scoresby," producer Jon Landau said in a statement. Cameron's Avatar stands as the highest grossing film of all time, with $2.7 billion globally. The first of four sequels is dated for Dec. 18, 2020, and stars Sam Worthington and Zoe Saldana. The new casting comes one week after Disney acquired 21st Century Fox, bringing the Avatar series to the company behind such box office mainstays as Marvel Studios and Lucasfilm. Cowell is represented by Hamilton Hodell in the U.K., United Management in Australia and Gang Tyre.
Did you read the story? Fox always owned the property, but Cameron had a big chunk of it. This is not a Lucasfilm situation.
Yes, it's this part that makes me think that Cameron has 100% control of Avatar. Landau's optimism comes thanks to years of experience he and Cameron already have working with Disney: In 2011, CEO Bob Iger approached Cameron about creating an Avatar land in the conglomerate's theme parks. After signing a roughly $500 million licensing agreement with Lightstorm in 2014, Disney opened Pandora — The World of Avatar, a 12-acre area at Animal Kingdom in Florida, with a 3D flight simulator, boat attraction, retail and restaurants.
The copyright at the end of the film says: ©2009 Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corporation and Dune Entertainment and it also says "A Lightstorm Entertainment Production." My guess is that Fox (now Disney) paid for the entire film and owns it, but Cameron and Lightstorm have a certain percentage of creative ownership of the characters, the script, the title, and so on. How that gets split is up for interpretation, but I'd say anything commercial (like a theme park ride, a soundtrack album, a video release, a sequel, toys, etc.) would have to be approved by Cameron. Does that mean he owns it? No. Does that mean he could make any additional Avatar movie he wanted all by himself? No, because he's partnered up with Fox. This is not as clear-cut as (say) George Lucas' deal with Star Wars, where he really truly did own several of the films outright, plus had creative ownership, plus controlled the merchandising and got to approve the marketing and a whole bunch of other stuff. I think it's fair to say only the top of the food chain directors (Spielberg, Scorsese, Tarantino, Scott, Jackson, Zemeckis, etc.) get part ownership in their films to the extent that they have this degree of control. As an example, there's been a rumor that Universal has talked about a Back to the Future reboot, but somebody asked Zemeckis about it and he said "not gonna happen." Does he own the film? No. Does he get to approve sequels? Apparently enough that he could stop one from being made. Does he have total control? Not in a practical sense.
And now there's this little editorial statement from the producers of The Simpsons, which will be exclusively streamed on Disney+ starting in November... Note Rupert Murdoch's picture in the trash on the right...
This just made me realize that Disney's main competitor to Walt Disney World theme park, Universal Studios Florida, has a Simpsons-themed ride which I would imagine isn't going to be at Universal Studios much longer. I wonder if Disney now owns the intellectual rights to any other attractions at Universal. If so, there could be a lot of reconstruction and retrofitting going on at Universal Park for the next few years.
I guess it comes down to the licensing agreement, termination clauses etc...if it's mutually beneficial to both parties maybe it will remain business as usual.
Yeah, that's true. I do think it would be kind of odd for Disney to benefit from licensing to a direct competitor in the amusement park business.
Or old amusement park agreements. We went this December and could not figure out why Marvel Land was at Universal, and hardly any marvel references at Disney. Some old agreement allows Universal to use Marvel IP in amusement parks east of the Mississippi. Man did they strike it lucky there the last 10 years.
Either way, I don't think that anyone is going to dictate terms to Cameron and Landau. One way or another they will continue to do as they please.
Disney+ subscriptions are starting out at starting out at just $6.99, obviously undercutting Netflix by nearly half. Disney Stock Pops, Netflix Shares Dip After Disney+ Aggressive Pricing Revealed I don't want to buy this but we will. This will be the start of more mega-mergers to come between studios and tech. Before you know it we'll have two or three huuuuuge conglomerates controlling all content. This and the end of net neutrality is the beginning of the end of everything cool. Or am I being too pessimistic... dan c
Yeah, it's a major part of Islands of Adventure. First went there back in the late 90's. They actually had better Marvel product souvenirs back then as opposed to what they have now. It's basically what you see in Wal Mart and Target. Maybe Universal pays a royalty of some sort.
This is what I think is so funny. Office Depot and Staples attempted a merger. The FTC blocked it as being anticompetitive and monopolistic. The merger was only a 6-billion dollar deal. Both Office Depot and Staples only sell everyday ordinary things like pens and paperclips, office supplies that anyone can buy practically anywhere. "Last week, a U.S. federal judge delivered a death blow to the Office Depot-Staples merger saga, effectively ending the deal between the two companies by granting the Federal Trade Commission an injunction against the merger. The FTC had argued that the $6 billion purposed merger would violate antitrust law, with the agency especially concerned by Staples and Office Depot’s sales to large corporate accounts. Given the two retailers’ dominating presence in the B2B office supplies space, the FTC argued a merger would significantly reduce competition in the marketplace and negatively impact large business customers. The companies argued otherwise, citing the quickly-encroaching threat of online competitors—namely, Amazon—that currently provide (or could soon provide) competition in the B2B office supplies market." Note: This quote was from 2016. It is so nice that we have the government protecting our backs.
