GENERAL DISCUSSIONS

Let's Not Confuse FOX with 20th Century Fox

POSTED BY: YT
UPDATED: Sunday, January 11, 2009 09:30
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 3829
PAGE 1 of 1

Thursday, March 30, 2006 2:32 PM

YT

the movie is not the Series. Only the facts have been changed, to irritate the innocent; the names of the actors and characters remain the same


It's a common problem, exacerbated by the use of "Fox" to identify both. I've commented on it several times in replying to individual posts (as have others) and realized I was repeating myself. I can't easily locate my previous posts on the subject, so decided to make it a separate thread, to which I can then refer folks. Here it comes:
---------------------------------------------

20th Century Fox is the studio with which Joss Whedon (as head of Mutant Enemy) had a development deal, and where he made all three of his television series (BtVS, Angel and Firefly).

the FOX Network (hereinafter FOX) bought original broadcast rights to Firefly from 20th Century Fox (making a long story short: US12Megabucks to make the pilot, & US2Megabucks per subsequent ep, for a total of US38Megabucks).

FOX (the TV network) declined to pick up the series based on the pilot, and asked Joss to write another first ep, over a weekend.

FOX picked up the series, but declined to air the pilot first.

FOX gave Firefly the same time slot they had first given the X-files -- Fridays at 8.

FOX, who had paid about a US$Billion for the baseball playoffs, decided to air those live. This affected Firefly's schedule for the following couple of months. FOX did advertise Firefly during the baseball playoffs.

Firefly's ratings were never higher than fourth from the bottom of FOX's prime time lineup, and three times were at the bottom.

FOX (the TV network) cancelled Firefly.

20th Century Fox (the studio) left the fixed sets (which filled two of their large studios) up for six months, to allow Joss to shop Firefly to other networks. I don't know if he tried ABC, NBC or CBS, which would have had even larger audience guarantees (to sponsors) than FOX, but he definitely tried the SciFi channel; they declined.

Joss Whedon has said that he still has a good relationship with 20th Century Fox, the studio.
The FOX Television Network? not so much.
----------------------------------------

Why does this matter?

FOX (the network) has no rights to Firefly; those expired when they canceled the show. They make no money from Firefly.

I see no reason to castigate folks for buying Firefly DVDs, which benefits 20th Century Fox, the studio that always supported Joss's work.

To summarize:
20th Century Fox ... the Good
FOX .................. the Bad
Fox .................. the ambiguous

Keep the Shiny Side Up . . .

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 30, 2006 2:42 PM

RESE


Thank you. That needed to be clarified. So many new folk on the site these days; there's bound to be some confusion. No biting of the nice hand!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 30, 2006 6:54 PM

NOSADSEVEN


Yeah, I usually just use the shorthand:
20th Century Fox = made Firefly = good.
FOX Broadcasting = cancelled Firefly = bad.

But I'm going to bookmark your post to refer people to for the details - especially about the rights issues. Thanks.

~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ain't. We. Just.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 30, 2006 7:19 PM

ITSBROKEN


I like the randomness of the post. Also it was very informative, officially linking to this so it never has to be said by you or anyone ever again. Thank you for the post.

-ME

-------
*Firefly is my escape, it doesnt work to tell people about firefly because i get too excited and scare them away, i have to set a trap!
-------
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=2&t=19318

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 30, 2006 7:25 PM

BLUEEYEDBRIGADIER


Um....I am not quite sure that right, nosadseven. As I understand the matter as the following:

20th Century Fox - Movie studio that distributed Star Wars and has deal with Joss Whedon. Owned by Rupert Murdoch

Fox Television - a subsidiary of 20th Century Fox and broadcaster of Firefly (sadly).

Fox - Presumably a generalized reference to both the studio and television network as one giant entity.

So....people can be bitchy about Fox being completely moronic, but only if they are thinking of Fox Television rather than the studio. The DVDs are property of 20th Century Fox until the property rights contract dies off...but that won't happen.

Fox the studio will hold on to the property rights for the series cuz we make them $$$. So...unless we Browncoats can compensate Fox Studios for potential future revenues from the boxset, they will be the beneficiaries of our lovely cashy money till time immortal.

Then again, I could be wrong. Just stating my 2 platinum

BEB

Literature has shown us some of humanity's greatest achievements; history, some of our greatest failures -- Alun Lewis

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 30, 2006 9:42 PM

YT

the movie is not the Series. Only the facts have been changed, to irritate the innocent; the names of the actors and characters remain the same


Quote:

Originally posted by BlueEyedBrigadier:
Fox Television - a subsidiary of 20th Century Fox and broadcaster of Firefly (sadly).


This turns out not to be the case. However, it does confirm that there is some confusion.

20th Century Fox Television is a subsidiary of Fox Filmed Entertainment. They once had a production deal with (among many others) Joss Whedon & Mutant Enemy. They did not broadcast Firefly.

the FOX Network ordered, paid for, originally broadcast, then canceled Firefly. They are neither a subsidiary nor a division of 20th Century Fox.

Quote:

So....people can be bitchy about Fox being completely moronic, but only if they are thinking of Fox Television rather than the studio.

But there's no justification for that. 20th Century Fox Television supported Joss, and he still has a good relationship with them.

Quote:

Fox - Presumably a generalized reference to both the studio and television network as one giant entity.

Yes, that's precisely my complaint.

Keep the Shiny Side Up . . .

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 30, 2006 10:23 PM

BLUEEYEDBRIGADIER


Ah....guess I just helped with the confusion, huh?



It is kinda stupid that you have 20th Century Fox and Fox Televison, and neither are related. Just confuses people like me who assume that they are.

Oh well...too bad 20th Century couldn't buy up Fox TV and allow for Firefly to be televised again.

BEB

Literature has shown us some of humanity's greatest achievements; history, some of our greatest failures -- Alun Lewis

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 31, 2006 4:17 AM

JONESTEIN


Quote:

Originally posted by YT:

FOX (the network) has no rights to Firefly; those expired when they canceled the show.



Thanks for the very informative post! I too was ignorant of these facts and confused by the ambiguous use of the name "Fox".

I thought I read somewhere that FOX (the network), never "officially" cancelled Firefly, they merely put it on hiatus which technically, leaves them with the broadcast rights. Didn't SciFi have to make a deal with them to broadcast the Firefly marathons?

-Jonestein
*************************************
OPERATIVE: ...and I'm unarmed.
MAL: Good.
(BLAM!)

FIGHT TO RE-LIGHT!!
www.browncoatsriseagain.com
www.texasbrowncoats.com
www.fortworthbrowncoats.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 31, 2006 9:34 AM

YT

the movie is not the Series. Only the facts have been changed, to irritate the innocent; the names of the actors and characters remain the same


Quote:

Originally posted by Jonestein:
I thought I read somewhere that FOX (the network), never "officially" cancelled Firefly, they merely put it on hiatus which technically, leaves them with the broadcast rights.


I heard (not read) that too, and that is customary. However, at some point their rights expired because . . .

Quote:

Didn't SciFi have to make a deal with them to broadcast the Firefly marathons?

SciFi's deal (for about 1% of what the FOX network paid) was with 20th Century Fox, as is Universal's.

Keep the Shiny Side Up . . .

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 31, 2006 9:46 AM

MILFORD


Thanks for making that distinction. It's one I always made in my head but not on a post. Here's how I understand the difference between the two.

In the 1000-1600's Eurpoe was constantly at war. Kings and whatnot had to find ways to keep the fighting men (sorry ladies, no fighting for you then) inspired. This led to a common oratorical practice called the Battle Oration. The most important characteristic was the characiterization of the enemey to be vanquished. They usually made comments about how God was on their side and commanded to do all sorts of evil to the enemy, which I'm sure was a surprise to God most of the time. The most common characterization of the enemy reveals what these soldiers thought was the worst act a human could commit. They would often allege that their enemies would cut the babies from the bellies of pregnant women and then make sport by tossing the babies up in the air and catching them on the points of their swords. Truly a ghastly scene.

Pretty much sums up my feelings about Fox Television, at least Fox Television since the X-Files ended.

20th Century Fox Studios I've got no beef with.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Customizeable handmade baby gifts personalized by my wife! Check them out at www.baby-bobo.com. All proceeds go towards international adoption.

Leaning into the wind that used to carry me-Stavesacre
That's why I don't kiss'em on the mouth- Jayne Cobb

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 26, 2006 6:24 PM

THERANDOMMANIAK


Too much too much, make the screaming stop!

Sorry, but there is too much going on here, and the posts go against the others, so could some one PLEASE tell me exactly what is going on in one post? please?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 26, 2006 7:05 PM

USBROWNCOAT


Quote:

Originally posted by TheRandomManiak:
Too much too much, make the screaming stop!

Sorry, but there is too much going on here, and the posts go against the others, so could some one PLEASE tell me exactly what is going on in one post? please?




Read the first one..nail on the head.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 26, 2006 8:21 PM

AGENTRUSCO


I like foxes... rusco even means fox... *sigh* why is everyone yelling?

______________________________
I cannot abide useless people.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 27, 2006 8:51 AM

THERANDOMMANIAK


No clue why people are screaming... I was trying to reference Firefly, but I knew by the time I posted it I failed miserably... oh well.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 27, 2006 10:36 AM

JONNYQUEST

"Did he just go crazy and fall asleep?"


The confusion shall persist. I applaud the attempt to sort out who is with the Alliance, who is with the Independents and who is with the Reavers. But the distinction between 20th Century Fox the Studio and FOX TV is not at all as clear as any of us would like. I almost believe it is the intent of Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation (owner of ALL things Fox-ish) to confuse the Fed come tax time.

If you go the News Corporation website, the links to "20 Century Fox Television" and "Fox Television Studios" on the "Filmed Entertainment" page, and the link to "Fox Broadcasting Company" on the "Television" page all lead to the same URL: FOX--the enemy--dot com. In the News Corporate structure there is no separate entity of 20th Century Fox Studios. The 20th Century Fox Film Corp., which we usually associate with the studio concept is only for motion pictures, not television.

So, yes, I do believe there is a line somewhere in this mess, and maybe the description provided will work as good shorthand, I don't think it's nearly that simple.

As far as 20th Century Fox (whichever the good one is) buying out Fox Broadcasting, BEB, it's moot. Both are working for the common good of their parent corporation. As in any corporate melange, it's not difficult to get along with one branch and despise another. We get along great with the copy room, and can't stand the IT nerds. (Just an example; don't hate me; I love IT people. Mostly. Okay, some.)

"Well, here I am."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 27, 2006 10:55 AM

FELLOWTRAVELER


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NewsCorp

Studios

* 20th Century Fox film production company
* Fox Searchlight
* Fox Television Studios
* Fox Studios Australia, Sydney, New South
Wales
* Fox Studios Baja, Rosarito, Baja California
* Blue Sky Studios

Broadcast

* Fox Broadcasting Company, a US-wide
broadcast television network

* My Network TV, a US broadcast television
network
* Fox Television Stations Group
* bTV, a broadcast television network in
Bulgaria
* Fox Televizija, a broadcast television
network in Serbia
* ANTV, a private television station in
Indonesia, under the administration and
label of STAR TV
* TGRT, a Turkish terrestrial channel


According to Wikipedia, it's all Murdoch. Not saying anything about which company is evil.

But, the Billionaire Tyrant is CEO of NewsCorp, which owns them both.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 27, 2006 11:08 AM

PATIENCE


Quote:

Originally posted by YT:
Why does this matter?

FOX (the network) has no rights to Firefly; those expired when they canceled the show. They make no money from Firefly.

I see no reason to castigate folks for buying Firefly DVDs, which benefits 20th Century Fox, the studio that always supported Joss's work.

To summarize:
20th Century Fox ... the Good
FOX .................. the Bad
Fox .................. the ambiguous

Keep the Shiny Side Up . . .



Where are you getting your facts? Enquiring minds want to know.



_______________________________
Facta non verba.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 27, 2006 1:26 PM

BAD2VERSE


Quote:

Originally posted by FellowTraveler:
According to Wikipedia, it's all Murdoch. Not saying anything about which company is evil.

But, the Billionaire Tyrant is CEO of NewsCorp, which owns them both.



There was a website (Forgot the URL) that allowed you to type in ANY company, and see ALL it's branches, roots, spin offs etc etc...

and you're right, it all lead back to "NewsCorp".. I was using the URL while investing (A phase I went through) because I didn't see how a company could "Fail" (Or not show a profit) when the owners and above it, and the spin offs below it, DID show a profit... (not that I was complaining, cause the division I invested in was showing profits)

It all boils down to taxes and stock values, and sometimes I think each "Division" takes a turn at taking a loss to keep several other stock values higher (IE: pushing their losses into a smaller subsiderary to keep the parent company's stock value up).. I haven't seen anything in 3 years to make me believe otherwise either. You can almost predict which subsiderary will take the next loss... but the Hydra heads all run back to Murdoch (But he makes me money, so I hate to complain about him ;)

________________________
..but eatin people alive, where does THAT get fun?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 28, 2006 2:48 AM

JONNYQUEST

"Did he just go crazy and fall asleep?"


I can help but tie in your signature with your last line...

"Well, here I am."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 28, 2006 5:58 AM

YT

the movie is not the Series. Only the facts have been changed, to irritate the innocent; the names of the actors and characters remain the same


(Edited) Never mind; it's in the original post.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 28, 2006 6:07 AM

MONKSDAD


so this entire thread is for who we should be mad at? I say spend more time trying to bring firefly back than figuring out exactly who we should be mad at.


"And I think calling him that is an insult to the psychotic lowlife community."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 28, 2006 6:08 AM

MONKSDAD


so this entire thread is for who we should be mad at? I say spend more time trying to bring firefly back than figuring out exactly who we should be mad at.


"And I think calling him that is an insult to the psychotic lowlife community."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 28, 2006 6:37 AM

YT

the movie is not the Series. Only the facts have been changed, to irritate the innocent; the names of the actors and characters remain the same


Quote:

Originally posted by monksdad:
so this entire thread is for who we should be mad at? I say spend more time trying to bring firefly back than figuring out exactly who we should be mad at.


This thread was started because of all the posts that included a statement like "Don't buy a(nother) copy of Firefly because it helps the network that canceled it."

I believe that every new copy of Firefly purchased is actually the only thing that can help get Firefly back on TV. Coincidentally, it also makes the network that canceled it look short-sighted. Rather than having to decide whether the good outweighs the bad, or vice versa, buying another copy of Firefly accomplishes two good things.

Keep the Shiny Side Up . . .

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 28, 2006 11:01 AM

PATIENCE


Quote:

Originally posted by YT:
(Edited) Never mind; it's in the original post.



Perhaps it's just me...I didn't see any references to what you're stating as fact listed.

_______________________________
You do that, and you'd best make peace with your dear and fluffy lord.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 30, 2006 5:40 PM

PHOENIXROSE

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.



Bump.


Better than a thousand hollow words, is one word that brings peace. - Gautama Siddharta

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 30, 2006 8:41 PM

PHOENIXROSE

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.



Double bump.


Better than a thousand hollow words, is one word that brings peace. - Gautama Siddharta

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 30, 2006 10:14 PM

WINDSTRUCK


I always thought they were the same.
Although, I knew that 20th Century Fox was like a production company. Something like Universal Studios or WB or MGM. I always associate it with the logo THINGY that one sees when watching movies.
And FOX was a tv station in the US.
I get the distinction between FOX(the tv station) and 20th Century Fox (Production Company). They are different at what they are doing. They have different jobs.
Like in a bank, a teller, and a new accounts personnel. They have different jobs but they work in the same bank.
Did I get it right????


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 30, 2006 10:58 PM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!


20th Century Fox = Rupert Murdock

Fox TV network = Rupert Murdock

20th Century Fox = Fox TV network
www.newscorp.com

I met a local business owner who owned over 30 businesses. He was still the same business owner, but presumably had 30 general mangaers, who presumably made the decisions to buy consumables, etc. But the big purchase decisions were presumably made by the one owner.

Not to say that Rupert Murdock makes all the major purchase decisons at either/or 20 Fox and Fox TV, but that his senior management team probably does.

What's mysterious to me is why SciFi broadcasts wresling but not Firefly.


FIREFLY SERENITY PILOT MUSIC VIDEO V2
Tangerine Dream - Thief Soundtrack: Confrontation
http://radio.indymedia.org/news/2006/03/8912.php
Pirate News TV
Channels 6 & 12
Winner Best Filmed Music
L.A. Indies 2006
Winner Best Music Video
Los Angeles Music Awards 2005
Winner Best Website
Y2K Tennessee Collegiate Website Design Contest
www.piratenews.org/hollywood.html
www.myspace.com/piratenewsctv


Does that seem right to you?
http://www.scifi.com/onair/

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 31, 2006 1:24 AM

XANDERESQUE


OK, I can buy the initial post as a general outline, in response to "don't buy nother copy..." statements. Looks like a good shorthand way to make a distinction between divisions to me. Course,

Quote:

Originally posted by bad2verse:

It all boils down to taxes and stock values, and sometimes I think each "Division" takes a turn at taking a loss to keep several other stock values higher (IE: pushing their losses into a smaller subsiderary to keep the parent company's stock value up).. I haven't seen anything in 3 years to make me believe otherwise either. You can almost predict which subsiderary will take the next loss... but the Hydra heads all run back to Murdoch (But he makes me money, so I hate to complain about him ;)



The cynic in me thinks there's more truth in this quote too.

Also, wasn't there something about a non-compete clause between Fox Broadcasting Co. and Mutant Enemy, saying something to the effect of "Joss, you can't make Firefly the series elsewhere to be broadcast on TV, but movies we can't do nothing about"?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 9, 2009 3:03 PM

PHOENIXROSE

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.


Considering the two threads up right now about 20th Century Fox challenging Warner Bros. rights to 'Watchmen' I thought this ol' thread could use a bump.

[/sig]

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 9, 2009 4:33 PM

FOLLOWMAL

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 9, 2009 10:04 PM

22CLAWS

Entirely pointy.


What about Sheinhardt Wig Co?

22

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, January 10, 2009 9:43 AM

PHOENIXROSE

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.


Bump again.

[/sig]

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 11, 2009 7:06 AM

PHOENIXROSE

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.





[/sig]

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 11, 2009 9:30 AM

DREAMTROVE


John is right. Though Murdoch didn't found 20th c. fox, he has owned it for a long time. The personal relationship between them seems fine. Murdoch is willing to lose a certain amount of money on Joss because it humors him to do so. Joss is a guaranteed money loser and Rupert knows this, and doesn't care... up to a point. It's just the amount of money that Joss spends. It's much easier for Fox to run girls in bikinis fight alligators for food.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

FFF.NET SOCIAL