Talk:20th Century Fox
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Filmmaking, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to filmmaking. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
 GA |
This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale. |
An event mentioned in this article is a July 23 selected anniversary
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)
Contents |
[edit] 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)
[edit] Cinemascope
Someone should AT LEAST add Cinemascope tags beside a film's name if it was produced with Cinemascope. - 152.163.100.196
[edit] 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?
[edit] Fanfare
Anyone have any info on the that fanfare that plays when you see the 20th century fox logo? Jeshii 06:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
- It's referred to as the "Twentieth Century Fox Fanfare"; the long version, which was originally used only on Cinemascope releases, was additionally titled "...with Cinemascope Extensions"... according to the versions I have (on a Radio Shack Compact Disc demo from the early 90s, primarily.
- This information, along with a note on 21st Century Fox, was actually *in* the page when, among other places, answers.com mirrored us: anyone know why it's been taken out? A quick scan of the history was unavailing.
--Baylink 22:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm also interested in knowing more about this fanfare. I'd like to know when it was first used(sometime in the 30s maybe?). Thanks --Chris
- You are correct, according to This web site, it dates back to 1931.
- The "Cinemascope" version was created in 1953.
- Both audio versions are available for download in MP3 format at http://www.reelclassics.com/Studios/Fox/fox.htm - ChaChaFut 17:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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.
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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. :) —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 -- everyone knows it's not referring to a fox from the 20th century. —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)
[edit] Robin Hood: Men In Tights
In the movie Robin Hood: Men in Tights, 20th Century Fox was referred to as "12th Century Fox". 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.
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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 corp 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.
