Talk:20th Century Fox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 20th Century Fox article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

{{WikiProject Banners |1=

	This article falls within the scope of the WikiProject Los Angeles, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage of articles relating to Los Angeles, California, and who are involved in developing and proposing standards for their content, presentation and other aspects. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the priority scale.

|2=

	This article is part of WikiProject California, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
	This article lacks sufficient references and/or adequate inline citations.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

|3=

	California Portal This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Southern California, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopedic coverage and content of articles relating to Southern California, its people, history, accomplishments and other topics. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.
	This article is also supported by WikiProject California.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

|4=

	Film Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. 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.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the priority scale.
Editing Guidelines Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article: If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film) For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot summary of no more than 900 words, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film.
Additional Information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Related task forces (general): Filmmaking task force

Contents 1 Zapped my edit 2 Defunct company? 3 Cinemascope 4 List of TV Shows 5 Infobox 6 Fox Logo 7 Oliver and Company? 8 Why Not Move to the Next Century? 9 Robin Hood: Men In Tights 10 Evolution of the opening logo 11 Rationale for merger of Fox Film article into this one 12 Why cant we have a Fox Logo Article?

[edit] 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)

[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] 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)

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)

[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 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)

[edit] 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)