Talk:20th Century Studios/Archives/2014

Zapped my edit
This is the appropriate place to discuss the history of 20th Century-Fox Film studio which just happens to include the fact that it was bought and is now owned by Rupert Murdoch & News Corp. I was just getting around to including the studio's long and rich history of filmmaking when someone zapped my entire edit.

Someone left this note in the software bug reports:


 * The page on 20th Century Fox has link to it's founder William Fox; but that link takes you to a DIFFERENT guy who was some new zeeland guy in 1860 and had nothing to do with Fox films.

Removed vandalism: link to Monty Python forums. (October 16, 2005)

Defunct company?
Why is this included in the category of defunct companies? And also be in the category of Entertainment companies of the U.S.? It is still an operational unit of News Corp. To me, defunct implies that they are no longer in business. But I think you can still see current movies with the 20th Century Fox logo. older ≠ wiser 16:29, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Isn't it now called FOX2000 or Fox Searchlight? Mike H 21:51, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)


 * While 20th Century Fox has been purchased, it is still an active company. I'm going to remove the defunct label. Willmcw 23:47, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Cinemascope
Someone should AT LEAST add Cinemascope tags beside a film's name if it was produced with Cinemascope. - 152.163.100.196

List of TV Shows
Is that a complete list of FOX television series? Because it's missing a lot of shows; here are some: Married with Children, Freaky Links, Dark Angel, etc.

Maybe there could a seperate link to a complete list of FOX tv shows?

\

Infobox
The user who added the infobox on this company, Logoboy95, has been perma-blocked after posting information of a dubious nature to numerous articles. I recommend the numbers and other information in the infobox be double-checked for accuracy. 23skidoo 15:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Fox Logo
Does this article really need 9 different versions of the Fox logo? I'm not sure that all 9 of them can really count as fair use, and I think after one or two they detract from the article rather than add to its value. --Hetar 09:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Images placed in the massive white space to the right of a list detract from the article? That's a new one to me...
 * And it's obvious that you haven't even looked at what the images actually are. There are a total of four 20th Century Fox opening logos, all of which differ drastically and illustrate the technologoical evolution of animation art in film (for example, the 1994 logo shows the change from 2D hand-drawn animation to 3D CGI animation). There is also a logo for 20th Century Fox Television and 20th Television, two entirely different entities with different purposes, and clearly different logos. And in fact, removing the TCFTV logo puts the 30th Century Fox TV spoof logo from Futurama completely out of context.
 * If somebody really wants to remove so-called "useless" images from articles, then maybe they should go after pages like WNBC and WNYW and hundreds of other Wikipedia articles first.


 * Well, it actually appears to be FIVE different variations of the main logo for 20th Century Fox. The original black and white, the two "tilted '0'" versions, the first one was an evening backdrop, the second was also an evening backdrop, but the sky was a bit lighter, the 1994 3D version, and the brand new refurbished one, unveiled at Avatar. NASCARFAN160


 * I don't really get the connection between "Rocky Longo" (supposed to be a designer) and the Rocky Horror Picture Show that is linked to his name.

Oliver and Company?
There is a picture listed in the 1930's group called Oliver and Company. The link directs you to a 1988 animation from Disney but I can't find a film with this name from 1935. I've searched IMdB and briefly on Google with no result. Is this maybe some mistake? Scrooge 15:47, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Probably. I've removed it. tregoweth 19:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Why Not Move to the Next Century?
If I'm not mistaken, this is the 21st century. I never understood why they didn't change their name to 21st Century Fox or something else. I know it would probably cost a lot to change, but it's like they're making movies from the last century.
 * Just think of it as referring to when the company was founded. :) &mdash;tregoweth (talk) 05:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, even though this is the 21st century, that doesn't affect the studios name. So, the "20th Century Fox" name will continue to exist forever to reflect the traditions of Hollywood "classics". Don-Don 14:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm still looking for a page showing it, but IIRC the final rationale for keeping it "20th Century Fox" sorta fits Don-Don's comment: They believed the films of the 20th century would forever be seen as the "greatest" of all time, so retaining that century in the name would suggest a continued high quality of films. Of course, the real reason is probably that the brand is too entrenched; except for United Artists, all the studios that tried to completely replace their classic logos in the past eventually returned to them, especially Columbia ("starburst" logo of late 1970's) and Warner Bros. (variant shields in late '60's-early '70's, "W" logo until mid-'80's). Again except for UA (whose logos were destroyed by Transamerica in favor of its own "T" logo, then completely redone by MGM), the modern-day successors of each of the classic "big eight" studios (even today's RKO) use updated renditions of their classic logos, often in CGI. --RBBrittain 05:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Changing names and changing logos are two different things. Fox probably kept it because it's such a well-known brand name, and it's understood that it's not literal &mdash; everyone knows it's not referring to a fox from the 20th century. &mdash;tregoweth (talk)

And remember: the name is from the merger of Fox Film with 20th Century Pictures - so it should remain. It's the same as "Star-Tribune" for a newspaper; doesn't really have to do with chronology.65.96.191.238 15:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

My understanding as to why the name wasn't changed to 21st century Fox is because a few years before we actually hit the new century, some clever guy bought the name with a view to selling it on to 20th Century Fox at a huge profit. However they never took the bait and that is why the name 'Fox Searchlight Pictures' was created. (No-one has mentioned this yet have they)? June 2007
 * In addition to the above, there was in fact a 21st Century film studio that was active in the 1990s and released a number of films. I think it would be worth noting in the article the rationale for keeping the 20th Century part of the name - as evidenced here not everyone is aware that it's the name of a merged company, not a calendar reference. There's probably an historic reason for keeping it too. Otherwise everything would have changed over to FOX years ago. 68.146.41.232 23:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Robin Hood: Men In Tights
In the movie Robin Hood: Men in Tights, 20th Century Fox was referred to as "12th Century Fox" as the DVD of Garfield: The Movie. Doberdog 12:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)Doberdog

Well, the name is from the merger of Fox Film with 20th Century Pictures - so it should remain. It's the same as "Star-Tribune" for a newspaper; doesn't really have to do with chronology.

Evolution of the opening logo
All but two of the open logos were unexplicably removed. They were replaced, but an anon seems to have removed them again. What's the deal? --Bill (who is cool!) 00:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Rationale for merger of Fox Film article into this one
Though historically 20th Century Fox was deemed to have started with the 1935 merger of Twentieth Century Pictures and Fox Film (and the studio's logo and fanfare came from Twentieth Century), today the studio officially counts its history from Fox Film's founding. --RBBrittain 04:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I was researching the merger, and having the pages SEPARATE was a help to me; and it is a discrete, unique entity. I vote for maintaining the separate pages.Crsandler 15:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep separate. This would be the same as removing the pages for companies and brands owned by News Corporation and just having one article that menations them all under the main company. 74.65.39.59

fox can have a separate page for its separate history but in truth, twentieth century fox film corporation is the continuation of fox film corporation with zanuck at the helm. the universal entry treats universal-international as part universal pictures, which it was, even thought it was headed by geotz, who had run int'l. but int'l and 20th century (pre-fox) were simply indie producers and the ego of putting their company names in the names of the major studios they came to head, doesn't change the fact that they were taking over and running existing organizations.


 * Keep separate. This article is ling enough, and those were distinct entities. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 03:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Why cant we have a Fox Logo Article?
Probably the most well-known image (and music) of film, and we cant have its own article. Why Not? Mg rotc2487 17:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

We really should have one. The public sees the logo more then anything during a movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.189.15.122 (talk) 02:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Doors song
There is a Doors song "Twentieth Century Fox" that links to this page. The song has little to do with the corporation, besides the name. I'm not sure what is standard procedure in something like this, if a separate page should be created, or if the link should be removed, or if there should be a different redirect. But I just wanted to point that out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.62.173.109 (talk) 17:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Two questions
1) How did you know that 20th Century Fox was created on December 28, 1934 instead of May 28, 1935?

2) How did you know that Scrat from Ice Age is 20th's mascot?

Don-Don (talk) 04:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Avatar Logo
The Avatar logo is different. Here's a shot of the logo from the Avatar trailer (which keeps getting removed from the article) next to a shot of the 1994 logo from a similar angle: —Some Person (talk) 23:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The Fox logo as of a DVD or Blu-ray Release to get the 1994 version. The trailer of the film is not finished yet, but faded to Lightstorm Entertainment. From the DVD of "Avatar".
 * Image:20thfoxangle.png


 * I see your point, but I know what you're implying. The so-called "Avatar logo" is not a "new" logo; it's the same logo Fox has been using since the mid-90s, only they updated the CGI effects to make the structure and the background more detailed. The fact that they upgraded the logo to avoid having it look dated is the only thing "new" about it. The concept is the same, so the logo must be the same, only with (of course) the enhanced visual effects. Like the "special editions" of the original Star Wars trilogy: Lucas updated the special effects, but they're still the same films.

So there you have it: there is NO SUCH THING AS A "NEW" LOGO! Let's stop wasting our time arguing about this topic, shall we?

End of discussion.--Freshh (talk) 20:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * But shouldn't we include the latest revision in the article rather than just the older one? —70.240.107.178 (talk) 02:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

It should be noted perhaps that the logo is 3D in such versions of the film, isn't this worth mentioning? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blooy (talk • contribs) 15:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I was in error on what's what. I'd beter not get a vandalization notice. Now the logo is orphaned, so how do I delete it? —iViking —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.137.232.196 (talk) 20:42, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Futurama
Futurama was initially produced by Fox, but then they left it, and it was taken by the Comedy Channel. Is it still a Fox franchise, or should it be removed from the list? Cambalachero (talk) 00:15, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

it is still produced by them, it is just aired on a different channel. You need to separate your concept of Fox the broadcaster from 20th Century Fox Thegreyanomaly (talk) 15:50, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Music -- Legacy Information
This section reads, "Prior to Fox Music, 20th Century Records was its music arm from 1958 to 1982." This is not correct; the music division of 20th Century Fox, while re-organized at least once and now called Fox Music, actively handles the music publishing for the studio and has done so since 1935. The 20th Century Fox record label was a separate entity which depended on the music division for material and clearances, but was not used to administer publishing; it was sold off in 1982.Pinikadia 22:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinikadia (talk • contribs)

Date conflict
The article currently says "The success of The Robe was so massive that in February 1953 Zanuck announced...", but The Robe was not released until much later in the year -- September 16, according to its article. 66.81.242.65 (talk) 19:02, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Star Wars
I think that next year. 20th Century Fox will no more to have Episodes I-VI. Disney will have one instead. TopCashBack2 (talk) 04 December 2012, —Preceding undated comment added 13:10, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

20 th century fox use to have the rights to Star Wars but Disney owns the name. It a former part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.79.4 (talk) 17:43, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * According to this article, Fox has distribution rights for A New Hope in perpetuity, and the other five films until 2020. Trivialist (talk) 22:00, 3 January 2013 (UTC)