COMMENTARY: "21st Century Mouse", by Kyle J. Ostrum · 4:35pm Dec 14th, 2017
COMMENTARY
COMMENTARY
COMMENTARY
COMMENTARY
COMMENTARY
COMMENTARY
COMMENTARY
COMMENTARY
COMMENTARY
Reprinted from http://kylesanimatedworld.blogspot.com/2017/12/21st-century-mouse-thoughts-on-possible.html
The views and opinions expressed in this blog post are simply those of the writer expressing said views and opinions and do not reflect the viewpoint of JCP, its subsidiaries and/or its employees and followers.
I'm sure you're all hearing the news...
The Walt Disney Company is apparently closing in on buying large chunks of Twenty-First Century Fox, including its film division, 20th Century Fox.
This raises a lot of questions.
A LOT.
While most of the trades are nattering about superheroes and Disney's streaming service and this and that, here is my concern...
20th Century Fox Animation.
Fox Animation isn't a studio, but an umbrella for animation studios, Ice Age and Rio creators Blue Sky Studios are the flagship house under the tree. Fox has been distributing Blue Sky's animated pictures since the beginning, 2002. For a little while, Fox distributed DreamWorks animated features. From 2013 to this past summer, they released ten of their films. DreamWorks was supposed to release some features with them in 2018, but Comcast bought DreamWorks in fall 2016, cutting the distribution deal a year short.
Outside of Blue Sky, DreamWorks, and hybrid movies like Alvin and the Hipmunks, 20th Century Fox distributed one Reel FX film (The Book of Life) and Wes Anderson's Fantastic Mr. Fox. The indie division, Fox Searchlight, will be distributing Anderson's Isle of Dogs in March.
Once the DreamWorks deal came to a close, Fox was only left with Blue Sky films and hybrids once more. So throughout 2016 and throughout this year, they've announced truckloads of new animated and hybrid movies. Some will be Blue Sky films (Nimona, Escape from Hat), some will be made by other houses (The Dam Keeper, A Tale of Momentum & Inertia), some... We don't know just yet.
Where will all of that go IF The Walt Disney Company and Twenty-First Century Fox ink the deal?
I mean... Would Disney even want more animation houses when they've already got two massively successful ones under their belt? It would be weird seeing the Fox/Blue Sky films technically be "Disney" films. Plus... Don Bluth's Anastasia, made by the defunct Fox Animation Studios, would now be a Disney film... Some 20 years after its release...
Something tells me that Blue Sky movies and all animation projects will fall to the wayside. Disney is likely interested in stuff like X-Men, Planet of the Apes, Alien, all of Fox Searchlight's indie/Oscar-potential stuff, etc. Of course, there's also Avatar, which is now a part of Walt Disney World's Animal Kingdom.
This leads me to guess... All of the Blue Sky/former Fox Animation stuff will either be dumped, or it will all be collected by another distributor.
If so... Who?
Not Universal, they already have Illumination and DreamWorks. LAIKA is their small animation arm, distributed through their Focus Features, but even that might be up in the air. Maybe Warner Animation Group, maybe not, I think they've got their slate all set. My best guess would be... Paramount.
They're trying to get an animation line-up going, what with Ilion, Skydance, and grabs like Sherlock Gnomes. Wouldn't hurt to have Blue Sky and company integrated.
Again... So much to think about.
X-Men will probably be integrated during Phase Four of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, because Phase Three truly will be the end as we know it, and that Phase Four will start something completely different. I'm sure the time stone and alternate universes will play a big part in bringing the X-Men to the universe we're currently seeing on the big screen.
Fantastic Four likely won't be back, though. Fox doesn't really own the rights, but instead a company called Constantin Films. They apparently have a very tight grip on the series, despite the ongoing failures.
It's not really weird to think that things like Alien and Kingsman will be "Disney" films. We're seeing a lot of people losing sleep over this potential deal, fear that Fox's R-rated productions and adult-oriented TV shows will be watered down, homogenized, etc.
I doubt that's going to happen.
Disney has been very hands-off these days. Marvel Studios and Lucasfilm do whatever they please. For starters, it was Disney executives who let Rogue One's filmmakers kill off the main cast of their movie. Throughout production, they worried that Disney would say no to an ending where all the main characters die... So one day they outright asked, Disney suits - to their shock - collectively said "yes." Under Disney, we got a Star Wars movie that was full of on-the-ground war violence and climaxed with all the good guys DYING, along with a scene where Darth Vader ruthlessly murders a bunch of rebels in a darkened hallway. That was like something out of a horror movie! In fact, many people complained that Lucasfilm - under Disney - made a Star Wars film that was too violent and too harsh. Imagine that! The Force Awakens gave us Kylo Ren piercing Han Solo through the chest with a lightsaber.
And they thought Disney would ruin Star Wars and make it all candy-and-rainbows, with songs and stuff! Never mind that Return of the Jedi has a musical number.
Marvel's movies kept their PG-13 ratings. Both Guardians of the Galaxy movies are full of destruction, high body counts, and lots of language. Thor: Ragnarok was pretty damn violent in some scenes, for a PG-13 rated film. Spider-Man: Homecoming had lots of family-unfriendly language. ("Penis Parker!") I see lots of people say that the early Paramount/Marvel Studios films had more grit or whatever, and that Disney sucked it all out with a Mickey-shaped straw... Outside of maybe some scenes in the first Iron Man movie - which has nothing on "Disney's" Captain America: The Winter Soldier, I have no idea what they're talking about. Nothing has really changed in Marvel Studios' movies.
So can we not worry about that? I feel Disney will treat this arm no differently. Apparently the big draw for Disney is content... For their up-and-coming streaming service. Disney's got two massive rivals here: Netflix and Amazon.
So, what better way to compete than to widen your library for your up-and-coming streaming service? On the side, they'll just be paying for more movies that aim at several different demographics. Also, it appears that the Murdochs are favoring Disney above all the others who are trying for Fox. Now that optimism could be all for naught, should they waste a good thing. That's always a possibility, I'm not negating that... Though that's up in the air, for James Murdoch may become Disney CEO after Bob Iger steps down.
Now, for some history. If you already know the following, move along, but some people are apparently unaware that Disney has produced and released R-rated films for decades.
In 1984, on-his-way-out Disney CEO Ron Miller (also Walt's son-in-law) created Touchstone Pictures. Ron and some other daring executives, like Thomas Wilhite, wanted Disney to create more adult-oriented films and get bigger hits beyond the family audience. After a string of movies (which included the likes of TRON, Tex, and Something Wicked This Way Comes) went belly-up, Ron solved the problem and created Touchstone. It's just a name, a banner. Several R-rated movies were produced and released under the Touchstone banner: Down and Out in Beverly Hills, Ruthless People, Pretty Woman, Con Air, Enemy of the State, The Royal Tenenbaums. News flash... They are all Disney films.
For a long while, Disney owned and released Miramax movies... These include... Pulp Fiction, Clerks, The English Patient, Chasing Amy, Jackie Brown, Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back, Kill Bill... Need I freakin' go on?
And... Lastly... What's wrong with everything else Disney distributes and has made?
As far as I'm concerned, Walt Disney oversaw several excellent animated features. They may have been family-friendly, but that doesn't take away from their storytelling qualities, exquisite animation, and other strengths. The way these people talk, you'd think Disney was making strings upon strings of Barney the Dinosaur or Dora the Explorer movies.
Disney didn't get where it got by making kiddie fodder. Walt Disney was adamant that he wasn't aiming his films at a young audience, but rather THE audience. Only later on in his life did Walt slip into a family values-type entertainment provider, but he still didn't talk down to young audiences or adults. He continued to oversee great films, TV shows, and of course... A goddamn theme park!
And why do you think Disney slumped after Walt's death? The people running the show didn't take risks, expand, or consider what made the company so successful to begin with. Walt risked everything to get Disney to where it was by the end of 1966. 1976-era Disney was making safe-as-vanilla-pudding product, pushing the idea that Disney was a "kids' first" brand. They became successful again after the animated films were geared towards all ages again, after divisions were created for adults-only and prestige fare, after expansion was done.
Those worrying about Disney babyifying Fox's R-rated material likely had no clue about what I just listed above. Now you do.
What IS a legitimate concern is... The monopoly.
Yes, I do agree. Disney needn't own all of these media-making companies. Variety's great. Not the magazine, of course. Different houses making different things... If it all comes from one place, it feels homogenous and kind of... Well...
I'm shamefully taking this from my writing buddy Mister Coat...
Disney is becoming similar to...
Nearly ten years after the release of that particular Pixar picture, we're seeing more signs of its future happening.
No wonder Bob Iger extended his run into 2021. He wants to see this all happen before leaving with a bang. To quote Steve Hulett, he has turned The Walt Disney Company into the "Berkshire-Hathaway of entertainment conglomerates."
So if this does happen, and I strongly think it will, there's going to be a lot of happenings... I just hope Fox's animation plans and other things are still safe and end up in the right hands...
If Fox Animation is cut off and none of the projects find homes, consider that a big downside in the deal. I wouldn't quite want to trade that for X-Men in the MCU.
Kyle J. Ostrum is an animation reporter, home media collector, record collector and film critic. His presence is on YouTube, Twitter, Google+ and Blogger.
