|
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Fox Repertory Catalog
|
|
|
Amrik Singh
Film Handler
Posts: 2
From: Punjab, India
Registered: Jul 2014
|
posted 08-10-2019 04:10 AM
https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/business/story/2019-08-09/will-disney-let-theaters-screen-old-fox-movies
Derek Reis, general manager of the historic Little Theatre in Rochester, N.Y., was expecting a decent Monday night crowd for his cinema’s screening of David Fincher’s satire “Fight Club,” a movie produced by 20th Century Fox.
Days before the screening, Reis contacted a studio representative to confirm that the digital version of the movie was on its way. But the response he got surprised him: The studio would no longer license its old films for commercial theaters. The screening was canceled, with Reis hanging a sign in front of the theater, which opened in 1929, to notify patrons.
“We’re not Regal; we’re not AMC,” Reis said by phone early this week. “We’re just one theater out in Rochester trying to play ‘Fight Club.’ ”
What changed, however, was clear. Fox, and the movies in its storied library of motion pictures, is now part of Walt Disney Co., which has long placed tight restrictions on when and how cinemas can screen its older titles. Disney’s long-standing policy is to not allow first-run theaters or commercial discount cinemas to screen movies from its library, whether it’s an animated classic such as “Lady and the Tramp” or a more adult-oriented film such as “The Sixth Sense.”
That policy now will apply to Fox’s vast catalog, according to exhibition sources who were not authorized to comment. The exception, these people said, is “The Rocky Horror Picture Show,” a mainstay of midnight audience-participation screenings and Halloween parties. Repertory theaters — those that specialize in screenings of old titles — will still have normal access to Fox movies, sources said.
The policy shift for Fox films has caused confusion among some exhibitors. On Friday, a studio representative contacted the Little Theatre to apologize, saying there had been a misunderstanding about whether the cinema qualified as a commercial theater, Reis said. The Times inquired with the studio about the Disney policy on Thursday.
A spokesman for Disney declined to comment.
We're crushed to say our Aug. 5 screening of FIGHT CLUB is canceled. Refund information:
https://t.co/RteqXJL89N pic.twitter.com/QGQYSCMxQd
— The Little Theatre (@TheLittleRoch) August 1, 2019
That Burbank-based Disney would tighten access to the Fox movies is not necessarily a surprise. The firm is famously protective of its intellectual property, which it leverages across multiple businesses including television and theme parks. Disney, for example, is known for releasing its classic animated titles such as “Beauty and the Beast” from the famed “Disney vault” for a limited time on home video.
There’s a clear business rationale for Disney to create scarcity. The company is counting on the combined library of Disney and Fox films to draw subscribers to its upcoming streaming service Disney+, which launches in November. The service, a major challenger to the leading streamer Netflix, will feature such classics as “Sleeping Beauty” and “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs,” along with popular films and original content from Marvel, Pixar and Lucasfilm.
Disney also plans to put Fox titles including “The Sound of Music” and “The Princess Bride” on the new service. The company has plans to reimagine Fox properties such as “Home Alone,” “Cheaper by the Dozen” and “Diary of a Wimpy Kid” on Disney+.
Still, the extension of the company’s theatrical policy to Fox’s vault has given some theater owners pause.
Art houses, independent circuits and other commercial theaters have traditionally screened films such as “Die Hard” and “Home Alone” during the Christmas holidays. For some chains, including Alamo Drafthouse and Landmark Theatres, such screenings represent a significant business, helping to fill seats during the week and odd hours that normally don’t draw huge crowds with current blockbusters. Alamo and Landmark executives declined to comment for this story.
The new restrictions could create headaches for people such as Russ Collins, a cinema operator in Ann Arbor, Mich., who is the founding director of Art House Convergence, which works with more than 300 theaters across the country.
“We know some of our peers have been able to book repertory titles and some of our peers have not,” said Collins, who runs the four-screen State Theatre and the Michigan Theater movie palace. “Fox has a really tremendous library. If ourselves and our colleague theaters can’t access that in the long term, that will not be good for the culture in general.”
For theater owners, the limits on classic film access is just one small example of the impact Disney’s control of the Fox studio is expected to have. Disney in March completed its $71.3-billion acquisition of Rupert Murdoch’s 21st Century Fox, parent of the century-old studio.
Disney, analysts say, will wield significant clout as it controls an unprecedented share of box-office receipts. The company’s movies have accounted for 38% of domestic ticket sales so far this year, according to Box Office Mojo. Some theater operators privately fret that Disney will extract a higher percentage of ticket revenue.
To be sure, Fox was already somewhat more restrictive than other major studios when it came to licensing its classics, exhibitors said.
While some distributors allow theaters to simply pay a licensing fee in order to play a Blu-ray disc, Fox would only allow theatrical screenings using electronic file collections known as digital cinema packages, or DCP. Other major film companies, including Warner Bros. and Universal Pictures, are more liberal with their oldies, cinema owners said.
But the Disney policy is nonetheless expected to make things more difficult for independent theaters, and has already caused uncertainty among art houses. Some said that they haven’t been given clear guidance on the rules and are left to make requests on a case-by-case basis. Certain small theater owners, including the nonprofit Roxie Theater in San Francisco’s Mission District, said they’d recently been approved to show Fox titles.
Martin McCaffery, director of the Capri Theatre in Montgomery, Ala., hosts a classic film series that sometimes includes old Fox movies. A favorite tradition is to screen “The Princess Bride” around Valentine’s Day, but he has little interest in screening “Rocky Horror” for his customers. He said his theater was recently was approved to screen a Fox title but he still has concerns.
“I really hope they keep their catalog open,” said McCaffery. “The purpose of having movies is so that people can see them.”
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Leo Enticknap
Film God
Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 08-10-2019 01:41 PM
quote: Frank Angel
Is that true, that SONG OF THE SOUTH is in Public Domain? I never heard that, and to be honest, I can't imagine Disney ever, EVER, under any circumstances, letting anything go into Public Domain status.
Only in Japan, along with all other pre-1953 movies. Disney didn't have any choice in the matter.
Vaguely related to which, I recently bought my three-year old son a Mickey Mouse t-shirt, emblazoned with the words "Original 1928" below the image of the iconic rodent, made in China and on sale for $6 at a stall at market night in Redlands. That likeness is now in the public domain, too, and Disney can't do anything about that, either.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Frank Angel
Film God
Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 08-10-2019 04:01 PM
quote: Mark Ogden
I'm not entirely sure how that could have happened. Fantasia is not a Berne Convention title, and hence the fifty-year rule should not apply. Under the original "28 plus 28" copyright law, the film would have not gone into public domain until 1996, six years after its' fiftieth anniversary, but the copyright act of 1976 extended the ownership of the film to 28 plus 67, or 2035. Can you provide any additional information, or a citation for this? I follow entertainment law as it applies to movies, and I'm really curious.
Sorry Mark, my post was paraphrased from what I had heard many years ago at an SMPTE meeting in NY around the time FANTASIA was about to go into PD. Point being, the Copyright Law was intended to make works of writers and artists AVAILABLE to the public. The thrust was that it was good for the public's edification and education to have access to the literary and artistic works and the Copyright Law was a way for the government to encourage the creation of those works by giving the creators monopolistic ownership rights FOR A LIMITED TIME -- key concept being "for a limited time." Copyright protection would theoretically give the creators an economic, monopolistic incentive that they otherwise wouldn't have. The law was originally citizen-centric not writer or artist-centric. It impact was never intended to restrict the public's access, but to encourage it. That is why there was always a time restriction on that monopolistic protection, as you pointed out, 28 years plus 28 years. It was never intended for copyright protection to be permanent, which is what the studios would like it to be and have done everything that can to move the law in that direction.
Today the studios, thru lobbying and weidling their political power with the lawmakers have pretty much ensured that Public Domain is a joke, even then a work has gone into PD, the copyright "owner" can just laugh at it and claim they still own it. Previously, once a work when PD, it was PD forever, or so was the general consensus, until that is, IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE. Now nothing in PD is safe if it belongs to a big conglomerate with lots of lawyers and deep pockets. Public Domain is really just an after thought that applies only to what may have accidentally slipped through the legal cracks before the studios were able to get the law changed decidedly in their favor. In reality, no studio executive is sitting back complacently awaiting the copyright to expire on any of their titles. You can be sure they will become mobilized like storm troupers when that date approaches on any of their titles.
In 2035 when the copyright on FANTASIA is about to expire, you can bet Disney will be right in there in the halls of Congress making sure the law gets amended once again to guarantee that they keep that key to the lock on their famous vault safe and untouchable.
BTW, for those who poo-poo collecting hard copies (DVDs and BRays) of the films they love as "old school," on the assumption that everything will be available on streaming services...why keep hard copies? Well this should give pause to anyone with that notion. f you have a BR of 2001 on a shelf in your den, you are guaranteed accessibility to that classic no matter how any studio decides to manipulate access to it. There is never any such guarantee that you'll be able to pick it off the internet on a whim. This move by Disney pretty much exposes the direction they are headed and it isn't open access to their or Fox's classics, or any other library they decide to gobble up, the Justice Department Anti-Trust division not withstanding.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
Printer-friendly view of this topic