Disney drops 'Fox' name and will rebrand its movie studio as '20th Century'

[Bobby Henderson]

Panavision is just the lenses; CinemaScope was a whole system and Fox had the cojones to launch it for the industry, after which we never looked back.

Did Fox or Bausch and Lomb actually create film cameras with CinemaScope branding? I thought those lenses were used on standard motion picture cameras made by other companies (such as Mitchell?).

Panavision was only just lenses in its early years. It was able to produce its own anamorphic lenses for film projectors faster and better than Bausch and Lomb could do making its CinemaScope lenses. The same thing happened when Panavision started making anamorphic lenses for 4/35 film cameras in 1958. Panvision introduced its own 35mm motion picture camera and spherical lenses a few years later.

MGM switched all of its 35mm anamorphic production over to Panavision in 1958, but still used the CinemaScope name for awhile after the switch. Eventually the Panavision brand gained its own level of popularity. Let's not forget CinemaScope was far from being the only widescreen process out there. Lots of movies were being filmed in VistaVision, Technirama, Todd-AO, SuperScope, etc and presented in a variety of ways (with 70mm being the best of the bunch). CinemaScope had its own problems too -like the optical "mumps" issue Panavision eliminated with its lenses. The public might have been keen on the CinemaScope brand name. But cinematographers and projectionists did not like those lenses, leading to the Panavision takeover.

CinemaScope does get points for being first to bring real widescreen to the 4/35 format.

[Frank Angel]

This is all true -- it was Chretien's little anamorphic lens, but it was Zanuck who had the vision to turn it into a full-fledged, working system that including a specially designed silverized, lenticular screen and 4 track penthouse for stereo surround sound capable of real high fidelity. He then promoted it and was able to sell it to an entire industry, including rival studios. It wasn't just the lens, it was perfecting and standardizing it all, providing the whole package for the exhibitor and then convincing them that this was the way to go. Plus,it was freakin backward compatible...no new projectors.

I think that because we have all lived with it for decades, we may not appreciate what a monumental leap that had to have been. If it had failed...if THE ROBE turned out to bomb at the BO, Fox might have gone under. It took some real chutzpah to go forward in spite of that. CinemaScope brought wide screen to the industry and the public who till then had only ever seen "square" movies, me to, that was no small steps -- this was a leap forward. Zanuck was so committed to CinemaScope that he said from THE ROBE forward, Fox would only produce CinemaScope releases. As I said, after THE ROBE, no one wanted to see Academy any more. Even titles that were already in the can were cropped by the theatre owners so they didn't look so puny on those scope-width screens. You could hear them saying, "I paid for this wide screen; I want wide movies, damn it!" as they ordered their projectionists to cut new aperture plates.

While mag stereo sound didn't take off quite the way the thirst for wide screen did, the improvement in audio quality was exponentially better than the mono/optical sound of the day. I'd even go so far as to say that if it weren't so expensive to produce, it would have become the norm. It certainly had the advantage over Dolby's matrix stereo with its inability to do any real channel separation. OK, the 12khz trigger tone on track 4 mag sound was something conceived when the Fox tech guys were all drunk, but still, when 4 channel mag was good, it was jaw-dropping impressive, not to mention it was the first time most people had ever heard high fidelity sound in movie theatres, other than the few who saw Cinerama.

No, I say Fox should have kept the name CinemaScope on all their anamorphic releases long after they let it go into oblivion for that ten year period. I don't think the name ever lost its recognition value. It certainly isn't any less recognizable than Panavision. Panavision is just the lenses; CinemaScope was a whole system and Fox had the cojones to launch it for the industry, after which we never looked back.

Michael Todd had that same kind of vision -- Todd-AO was something that took that kind of vision and belief in an idea; once it was launched, it changed the industry.

[David Ferguson]

20th Century Fox and the folks at Bausch and Lomb merely bought Chretien's Hypergonar patent and took it into production.

I'm fairly sure that I read that the patent had expired by this point, so what 20th Century Fox bought was the lenses that Chretien already had.

[Bobby Henderson]

20th Century Fox didn't really invent anything new with the development of CinemaScope. The concept of the anamorphic lens was invented in the 1800's. Henri Chretien modified the idea to work with motion picture cameras in the 1920's and patented it under the name "Hypergonar." Various people and companies worked on their own anamorphic lens systems for gauges like 16mm. Outside of some experimental demonstrations, such as the Hypergonar system at the 1937 Expo in Paris, there was no serious interest in using anamorphic lenses until This Is Cinerama became a huge hit.

20th Century Fox and the folks at Bausch and Lomb merely bought Chretien's Hypergonar patent and took it into production. CinemaScope was very common in the 1950's and 1960's. The CinemaScope name had a lot of brand equity. But Panavision slowly took over for obvious reasons.

Panavision made anamorphic film projection lenses that were easier to use than the original CinemaScope projection lenses. Panavision made conversion lenses for different film formats which helped in film print production. Then they developed the MGM Camera 65 system, which led to the Super Panavision and Ultra Panavision format names. The introduction of the 35mm Auto Panatar anamorphic lens in 1958 is really what signaled doom for CinemaScope. It was a better film production lens and it wasn't attached to some rival movie studio. Panavision started making their own motion picture camera systems and only offering them and the lenses for rental.

I think one of the biggest things that helped Panavision over the long term was the company loudly emblazoned their logo on their camera systems. Panavision cameras stood out on movie sets. The cameras weren't just some black box with no name on it with a lens attached. Today just about everything has gone digital, with cameras looking like modest-sized black or grey boxes with a bunch of inputs and computer stuff all over them. They don't have huge film magazines pimped out with a great big logo. Likewise, Panavision isn't as popular today as it was in the film age.

[Frank Angel]

CinemaScope was not just an evolution, but an epic revolution in the industry; it was a change that was so fundamental to the way films were conceived and shown, that we never went back. Even when films were still shot spherically, movie-makers and the moviegoing public never wanted to see an Academy ratio again. Once the more than twice the width of the 1.37:1 screen was installed, no one was going to tolerate a square image any more. And even though we were still saddled with a square 35mm frame, both filmmakers and exhibitors were going to crop the hell out of it until it's WIDE.

Zanuck knew what he was doing when he first saw Cinerama and the lines that wound around the block for every show and said, "I want me some of that BO!" Then he locked his R&D techs to a room and wouldn't let them out until they got him wide screen (with a curve, no less) and stereophonic sound and btw, it's gotta be easy for the exhibitors to implement it -- none of this Cinerama crap where they need three booths and a five man crew to run it. Zanuck wanted it to be something exhibitors would install and run without breaking the bank.

Amazingly, Fox was able to pull it off -- an astonishing feat, IMHO. AND they got an entire industry to go along with them...THAT's the miracle! Why they would then give up claim to that achievement just because Panavision came along with their albeit better lenses was always a mystery to me. The aspect ratio of 2.55, er... 2.35, uh...2.39, mm...2.40 (pick a damn number SMPTE) -to-one -- that was what CinemaScope meant to the general public. Fox developed the process, made it a household name and owned the name; they could have still used it on any of their releases that were shot anamorphically. Hell, we STILL call it 'Scope. Sure, they could have toned down the emphasis a bit (early on, the CinemaScope logo was the same point size as the film's title...sometimes even bigger and sometimes even placed ABOVE the title; no need for that, but keeping reference to the name of the granddaddy of all 35mm wide screen processes and the fact that their company had the vision to make that move despite how risky it was, could have and I think should have, carried on long after they abandoned it.

The power of the name was so real that every other studio used it even though they had to give Fox credit. When I ran MR. ROBERTS, I remember thinking how Jack Warner must have had to grit his teeth and bite the bullet when I saw right after the title in the opening credits, there was the CinemaScope logo frame (a stand-lone frame) and it had the line, yes in very small point size, but there nonetheless, that said,The CinemaScope logo is a Trademark of Twentieth Century Fox. Warners was willing to eat that bit of humble pie just to be able to use that powerful moniker. Respect for history...respect for legacy; something we hold in too little regard.

[Bobby Henderson]

I can sort of understand why Disney would want to drop the "Fox" name from "20th Century Pictures." But they really really must understand there is one hell of a LOT of BRAND EQUITY in the 20th Century Fox logo. Even if it is an old-fashioned, very dated design. That logo is nearly the Coca-Cola of movie studio logos (one could make an argument the MGM emblem is the most iconic studio logo). The Coca-Cola script has changed very little in over 100 years. The 20th Century Fox logo has seen only subtle changes over the decades, not a complete, fundamental brand re-fresh. Disney will pretty much be hard-bound to make any "20th Century Pictures" logo look very similar to the previous 20th Century Fox logo. They should also keep the familiar fanfare music. No other studio theme music is anywhere near as recognizable as the Fox Fanfare theme.

Also, I agree with others who say Disney should retain the original 20th Century Fox openings on that studio's library of films. Generally I think all movie studios should do this when acquiring the catalogs of defunct studios and production companies. It is indeed historical revisionism to remove that stuff. I couldn't stand Cannon Pictures back in the 1980's for the big pile of deliberately shitty movies they made, but I wouldn't remove the Cannon logo off the front of one of their rare good movies, like Runaway Train or 52 Pick-Up.

All the original Star Wars episodes should retain the 20th Century Fox logo, Lucasfilm Ltd logo and the complete fanfare music. [i]Plus Disney really needs to release "de-specialized" versions of the original trilogy. Maybe there's a chance they'll do it when Star Wars turns 50 seven years from now.

It pained me that in the late 60s when they dropped CinemaScope (NEVER thought they should have done that, no matter who made the anamorphics) and that music (there isn't a human being on the planet that doesn't recognize the music within the first three drum rolls) but was really happy when they relented and brought it back for STAR WARS.

The original Fox Fanfare was just the shorter version. The arrival of CinemaScope brought about the added bars of "CinemaScope Extension" music. Star Wars did sort of revive the added theme in 1977. But 20th Century Fox was never very consistent how the longer theme was applied to various movie releases. IIRC, Alien a couple years later merely had the shorter, original Fox Fanfare theme.

IMHO the extended Fox Fanfare never sounded better than it did on the front of Die Hard. It thumped HARD in 70mm at the Baronet theater in NYC.

[Frank Angel]

So let's see, they are revising the logo and KEEPING Twentieth Century in the name -- calling attention to the fact that what? that they are stuck in a past millennium? I am totally against revisionism as well and was really worry that when we stepped into 2000, that Fox would decide to just come up with a new name and new logo altogether and drop the venerable name and even more importantly, the Newman extended CinemaScope music, given the dilemma the company obviously had to confront, that of now calling themselves something from a bygone era...it would be akin if they decided to call themselves 18th Century Studios. It pained me that in the late 60s when they dropped CinemaScope (NEVER thought they should have done that, no matter who made the anamorphics) and that music (there isn't a human being on the planet that doesn't recognize the music within the first three drum rolls) but was really happy when they relented and brought it back for STAR WARS.

I have no problem having them change the studio name going forward to whatever they like, but just leave history in tact.

[Marcel Birgelen]

I'm not a great fan of post-revisionism. Those logos had their place in time. Even the Weinstein Company logo. So, removing and/or replacing them is altering the way those movies were originally presented. Also, I think that the 20th Century Fox fanfare is still one of the better opening logos of all of them, especially the newer versions. They build quite some anticipation for what's going to follow.

I think the current trend of having 20 logos slapped onto the beginning of a movie, combined with them often all being repeated in the opening credits is also quite stupid and totally besides the point. Almost nobody is going to remember those one-hit companies anyway.

[Mike Blakesley]

My personal opinion has always been that films should retain their original logos, but a new logo snipe can be placed before it.

That's OK, but I hate it when it's the same studio. Universal does this.... they put the modern looking Universal logo on, then right after it comes the original Universal logo on the film. It just looks dopey and out of place on an older movie.

I agree about the Star Wars fans going apeshit if Disney removes the logo from the older films.... whatever will they do?

I just hope they keep the fanfare, but they seem to not really care too much about legacy when it's not their own legacy.

[Martin Brooks]

I wouldn't be surprised if Weinstein's logo disappears from the opening credits of his movies on consumer media going forward.

In that case, I think it will definitely be removed even though it also referred to his brother.

I guess it really only only bothers me when it’s changed on films by the old line studios. Most current films open with eight different logos from all the production and finance companies involved, so it seems less important. Sometimes the beginning of a film seems like a logo demo reel. Happens on trailers as well.

[Leo Enticknap]

My personal opinion has always been that films should retain their original logos, but a new logo snipe can be placed before it.

I wouldn't be surprised if Weinstein's logo disappears from the opening credits of his movies on consumer media going forward.

[Martin Brooks]

"20th Century" sounds like something is missing, I'd rather named it something like "20th Century Pictures", but who am I?

I guess they decided to drop the FOX part, to avoid confusion with the Fox Corporation, which is also owner of the Fox News channel and still owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp.

It's going to be "20th Century Studios"

[Martin Brooks]

Even though I knew intellectually that 20th Century Fox was controlled by the Murdochs, I never associated any bad feelings to it just because the Murdochs also owned Fox News and the NY Post. I have to wonder whether this was an internal discussion at Disney based on "feelings" or whether they actually did some research to see whether this bothered people. In half the country, an association with Fox would probably be considered a positive thing.

It seems to me this should have been part of the acquisition discussion and since Disney paid so much for 20th C Fox, they should have gotten the name and the Murdochs should have had to change the name of the parts of the company they were keeping, which I thought had already been changed to 21st Century Fox anyway.

When they change the logo on the first six Star Wars films, the Star Wars fans are going to freak out.

My personal opinion has always been that films should retain their original logos, but a new logo snipe can be placed before it.

[Mike Blakesley]

Some sites are reporting that the move is meant to disassociate the studio from the Fox properties

I kind of figured that was the case.... Disney probably hates Fox News especially. The way people take things for granted and/or misconstrue things these days, it's not a surprising move.

[Mark Ogden]

Some sites are reporting that the move is meant to disassociate the studio from the Fox properties still being controlled by Rupert Murdoch. Sad for the ghost of William Fox and his descendants, probably a good move otherwise.