Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Fox Repertory Catalog

This is topic Fox Repertory Catalog in forum Ground Level at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=5;t=003206

Posted by Mark Strube (Member # 4190) on 07-29-2019, 05:05 PM:

Unfortunately for those of us who do alternative programming, our jobs just got a little harder. I just received word from our bookers denying a few of my recent requests from Fox.

With the Disney purchase of Fox, their policy of not allowing commercial movie theaters to book anything from their repertory catalog has now become the policy at Fox.

Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 07-29-2019, 05:19 PM:

They probably want to save some of their repertory titles for Disneys upcoming streaming service.

Posted by Mark Strube (Member # 4190) on 07-29-2019, 05:30 PM:

As far as I know, this has been the policy at Disney for many years. Their repertory catalog is untouchable if you're a first-run commercial movie theater. It's just unfortunate that now the entire Fox catalog is off-limits as well.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-29-2019, 08:50 PM:

Disney is a genius company in so many ways but in this one, they are just stupid. They're leaving potentially millions of dollars on the table.

The policy was instigated during the film days. I have a feeling if a person could get to the right decision-maker at Disney, it could get reversed. They do anything else to make profit off their library; why not this?

The problem is finding the right person who could make a change. He or she is probably behind about five or six layers of subordinates.

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 07-29-2019, 10:36 PM:

Apparently the only Fox Rep film now available to first run houses is Rocky Horror.

We're going to have a lot of disappointed people come Valentine's Day who look forward to our annual screening of The Princess Bride.

Posted by Mike Spaeth (Member # 524) on 07-29-2019, 10:39 PM:

Including "The Rocky Horror Picture Show"? Rep screenings of just that title net them hundreds of thousands of dollars each year.

Edit: Martin answered the question in an almost simultaneous post above.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 07-29-2019, 10:51 PM:

Is this regarding bookings through Fox or through Criterion?

Posted by Mark Strube (Member # 4190) on 08-04-2019, 11:40 PM:

As far as I know, only Fox and Fox Searchlight. Are Criterion titles theatrically booked through a different entity?

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 08-05-2019, 04:50 AM:

So non-commercial operations like museums and performing arts centers still have access? What's their definition of "commercial" theatres? Even performing arts centers, colleges and museums charge admission or are they falling back again on the age-old nonsensical division of theatrical vs. non-theatrical which has been the bane of my existence for the last 30 years?

Decades ago I had to created an entity within the performing arts center at the college that on paper, looked and acted no different than any commercially run arthouse. Box Office reports, booking forms, all our stationery plus, of course all our publicity material only referenced ourselves as an art cinema. The only reference to the college was that it was located on the college campus so people could find us, but other than that we booked as a commercial retrospective arthouse. There was never any reference to the string of non-profit entities in which the cinema operation was nestled. This allowed me to book like any commercial arthouse, getting titles on the break with second run theatres. I got to play the titles I wanted, the studios got their pound of flesh.

If this new policy allows booking to PACs and other traditionally non-theatrical cinemas, then I guess we'll have to redo the stationary again and become a Performing Arts Center on a college campus.

The hoops we have to go thru just to show movies.

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 08-05-2019, 07:33 AM:

The policy seems to be in flux, and getting pushback.

Last I heard, if the theatre runs any first run films (and as the definition of running first run varies by distributor, who knows what that really means) it is not allowed to show Fox rep.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 08-05-2019, 08:33 AM:

quote: Mark Strube
As far as I know, only Fox and Fox Searchlight. Are Criterion titles theatrically booked through a different entity?

Criterion Pictures is the nontheatrical distributor for 20th Century Fox and Fox Searchlight titles (and those from a handful of other distributors). Some cinemas book Fox repertory titles through them, while others book directly through Fox. I forget how Fox defined "theatrical," but a performing-arts center would not have qualified when I went through the process of booking some films in 2012-ish.

Agreed with Frank that the whole theatrical/non-theatrical thing is truly odd. I book occasional screenings for a PAC type of place. Warners, Universal, and Sony let us book through them as a theatrical exhibitor. Disney, Paramount, and Fox force us to book as non-theatrical through Swank/Criterion. We have not booked anything from Dreamworks. In any case, they all use different definitions for what is "theatrical."

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 08-05-2019, 12:01 PM:

Maybe when Disney's bean-counters are combing through the Fox books, they'll see how much money they made on rep titles and it might spur them into thinking, "Hey, maybe we could add some Disney titles to this list and really kick-start it" but then the video division will say "No no no, those titles are going onto Disney+, so forget it."

No reason why they couldn't do both though. Maybe a repertory title could end with a card saying "Liked this movie? Watch it again on Disney+!"

Posted by Rick Cohen (Member # 6140) on 08-06-2019, 03:06 PM:

Kinda anticipated this when Fox was bought by Disney. It was almost inevitable, was just a matter of when.. The only reason Rocky Horror is an exception, is because technically, it has been in continual release since 1975, and has never been fully pulled from cinemas, although its runs certainly are of a limited nature.

I am curious if they are still allowing bookings of the more adult oriented Fox titles, such as Alien. I had heard that the kids titles would be taken off service first, such as Princess Bride and Sandlot.

Definitely a huge blow to theatres which run occasional retro programs.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 08-06-2019, 04:29 PM:

Disney tries to inflate value by creating a false scarcity around their content. They've done this for quite a while now, even back in the VHS days it was often particularly hard to find a good copy of one of their repertoire titles. Yes, nowadays, in the age of the Internet, cheap global shipping, you'll find a copy of almost any title, but it's not because Disney is so forthcoming.

I think their idea is that, by reducing the availability of certain content, they increase the desire for this content. Yet, they're not going to give it to you at some bargain price.

But then, once in a while they'll put a "remastered" version in circulation, for which they simply ask their premium pricing.

Now, this might work for the traditional Disney content to some extend, but I doubt it will work the same for the Fox repertoire catalogue...

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 08-06-2019, 06:23 PM:

quote: Marcel Birgelen
They've done this for quite a while now, even back in the VHS days

They did this before the VHS days. They had their big animated films on, IIRC, a five year cycle to allow time for a new generation to be produced and be brought to the movies by their parents.

One thing Disney has always been good about is monetizing the product. We'll see if it works in the streaming age or if they are leaving money on the table.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 08-06-2019, 07:56 PM:

quote: Martin McCaffery
They had their big animated films on, IIRC, a five year cycle

I always figured it was seven years, but yeah, that's what they did.

Somewhere in the archives of Boxoffice there is a quote from somebody at Disney saying they would never release their classic animated movies on video because they were not meant to be watched on TV sets.

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 08-06-2019, 10:37 PM:

Hmmm... Maybe, then, I should look around my basement to see if I can find that old, VHS copy of "Song of the South" that I've got squirreled away, down there. [Wink]

They'd have a shit fit if a clean copy of THAT ever got out into the wild.

Yes, I understand that a copy of an aged VHS video tape should, by no means, be even remotely considered a "clean" copy. I just think it would be funny to see the looks on their faces if that ever happened. [Wink]

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 08-06-2019, 11:07 PM:

I believe that there is a PAL laserdisc copy of SotS that is considered to be the best home-format version that was officially released.

Posted by Chris Haller (Member # 9206) on 08-06-2019, 11:48 PM:

quote: Scott Norwood
I believe that there is a PAL laserdisc copy of SotS that is considered to be the best home-format version that was officially released.

As far as I know, that title is claimed by the Hong Kong release. It's a dual audio release of the film with a Catonese and English track. As a result, there's no subtitles.

All of the Japanese releases of the film featured at least minimal subtitling during musical numbers.

I have the last release of the movie. It's in English with digital audio, but the entire film is subtitled in Japanese!

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 08-07-2019, 06:22 PM:

The latest from the Art House Convergence mail list:

quote:
I promised that I’d give an update as soon as I heard, but others have already posted the good news. Fox can now accept repertory bookings and the rich history of Fox titles which we’ve been able to share with our audiences is still available to theaters - good news after a brief scare.

There will be a change on “kids shows” which will no longer be allowed. As of right now, this is the one substantial policy change which more closely adheres to Disney’s practice of prohibiting these shows.

At least one theatre is was told the films are still not available. We'll see if there are others.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 08-08-2019, 09:03 AM:

A fun bit of conspiracy theory speculation: perhaps another reason why Disney has cut off Fox' catalog from repertory play in commercial theaters is that Disney intends to remake the living hell out of all those Fox movies. Can't have any of the originals, such as Home Alone playing in theaters when they intend to remake Home Alone.

Posted by Ed Gordon (Member # 10866) on 08-08-2019, 09:37 AM:

quote:
Fans will soon get to relive the joy of Home Alone when Disney launches its highly anticipated streaming service. The only problem is that Kevin McCalister's masterful plots and schemes against burglars Harry and Marv may be a bit different than what was portrayed in the 1990 classic.

Disney CEO Bob Iger revealed plans for Disney+ to include 20th Century Fox classics like Home Alone, Night at the Museum, Cheaper by the Dozen and Diary of a Wimpy Kid, however, during an investment call he noted the films would be "reimagined" for the new streaming service, CNN reported on Wednesday.

https://www.newsweek.com/home-alone-disney-streaming-service-reboot-twitter-1453028

It's true, you can't make this stuff up!

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 08-08-2019, 10:48 AM:

The Disney ads for Home Video of their classic animated titles would always tell you to hurry up and buy it on DVD before it goes back into the VAULT! The reality was, that if a video retail store bought a quantity of discs of that title and they didn't sell them all by the date Disney claimed it would be gone, that store could keep selling them as long as they had them in stock. Copyright law isn't involved with the property ownership of the physical medium as the whole debacle of the FBI vs Roddy McDowell eventually defined (he was never charged or arrested because it was bogus raid). If you own the disc of Song of the South, no one can stop you from selling it, not even the whole gaggle of lawyers at the Rodent House.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 08-08-2019, 11:49 AM:

quote:
There will be a change on “kids shows” which will no longer be allowed.

Because we wouldn't the kids to be entertained or maybe get into the habit of going to the cinema and enjoying movies or anything. Better to have them stay at home and play video games.

(Seriously, though, I wonder how they define "kids shows.")

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 08-08-2019, 01:44 PM:

quote: Frank Angel
If you own the disc of Song of the South, no one can stop you from selling it, not even the whole gaggle of lawyers at the Rodent House.

It's also, so I am told, widely available on unofficial consumer media releases in Japan, where the movie is now in the public domain.

Shortly before emigrating from the UK, I was put in touch with someone who had a pristine 16mm diacetate IB print of it, struck in 1948. He wanted to raise a Volkswagen salute to Mickey, by screening it on the university campus where I worked, taking advantage of an educational use = fair use exemption in British copyright law. However, the law contains wording that made it ambiguous and messy as to whether the conference we wanted to screen it at actually qualified as educational or not (the exact wording was something like "official course of instruction"), the university's lawyers got cold feet at the prospect of a rodent infestation, and the show never happened (apart from a very private screening for a select few of us while this was still in the proposal stage).

Trying not to veer into politics, but in the current political climate, I'm not surprised that even so much of a hint of a Disney-sanctioned re-release of SOTS is well and truly off the table. If a major studio announced a blockbuster remake of one of the most infamous Nazi propaganda movies, it would probably be less controversial!

Posted by Mark Strube (Member # 4190) on 08-08-2019, 07:10 PM:

So "adult" Fox repertory titles are again available to commercial movie theaters? I just sent an email to our film buyers but I probably won't hear back until tomorrow.

Posted by Mark Strube (Member # 4190) on 08-09-2019, 12:55 PM:

Update: the "good news" only applies to strictly art house theaters. I program for first-run theaters and run repertory shows as extra revenue on slow nights. Fox repertory is still unavailable to mainstream theaters. Oh well.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 08-09-2019, 01:04 PM:

Maybe you should split your business in three... one that runs the building and rents it out, one that does the first-run movies and just happens to rent the building to do so and one that does the repertoire titles and also just rents the building to do so... The "brothel model". [Wink]

Might be nasty, but it's not like Hollywood never operates with those kind of tricks. They literally came up with the whole concept that's named after them: "Hollywood Accounting", just to screw others over to increase their own profits...

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 08-09-2019, 03:23 PM:

Marcel is right. And it wouldn't be a "trick" as much as just playing by their own rules. If a "Cinema Art Society" rents your theatre for their screenings and Disney is OK with that kind of booking, then start a damn Cinema Art Society.

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.

When FANTASIA was about to go PD at the end of its 50 years, they spent over a year trying to find any loop-whole, and nuance in the law that they could get around it or thwart it.
When they couldn't they remained undaunted and simply got their army of lawyers together, jetted over to Washington, wined and dined the politicians, plied them with wine, women (well, probably more like young girls and/or boys) and forget the song -- I am sure it was more like piles and piles o' MONEY. And then magically, just before FANTASIA became PD...you know, the intellectual property of The People, it became copyrighted property again of the life of the "author" plus 50 years. So not knowing what the life of the Disney Entertainment Group is, who knows when FANTASIA will become Public Domain. Well, we do know actually, NEEE-VER.

So in the face of THOSE tricks, I say quibbling over or bending definitions a bit so you can make MONEY for THEM, doesn't even qualify and anything to gnash one's teeth or rend one's garments over.

Posted by Mark Ogden (Member # 43) on 08-09-2019, 04:32 PM:

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.

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 08-09-2019, 05:29 PM:

quote: Mark Strube
Update: the "good news" only applies to strictly art house theaters. I program for first-run theaters and run repertory shows as extra revenue on slow nights. Fox repertory is still unavailable to mainstream theaters. Oh well.

Did you (or your booker) work your way up the chain to Veronica Neeley?

Posted by Amrik Singh (Member # 8384) on 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.”

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 08-10-2019, 10:13 AM:

Thanks for the link.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 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.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 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.