Ok, all, back from a week of limited connectivity! Next post is tomorrow.
Yes. Please do this! While you're at it, can you give that part of the transcript its own chapter?
No promises there. It hurts my brain to think of the possibilities
.
While I'm not completely happy with it but this is my best effort of creating a pic of Samantha Smith as Leslie Crusher:
Not bad, actually. Probably close to Season 1 Leslie there.
Question for Geekhis: how is the Australian films notably doing? The
Australian New Wave is at its tail end, but you probably wouldn't mind a backtracking interquel instalment, and any aussies could help writing it.
Egads, no real idea. If I get the time I'll look into it. Any volunteers?
*EDIT* I've looked into this. Some of this is still in this TL, e.g. Crocodile Dundee and Mad Max. I haven't dug much deeper. Yahoo Serious would probably have still made Young Einstein (looks like an obsession at play there). Can't speak to any butterflies within the industry itself.
Work travel in my case.
A question movie goers during this time period would be asking if he was seen. Though, I guess Look Who's Talking did just come out.
I forget if that movie happens or not. If it did it would be a Hollywood Pictures film, most likely. If not HP, then probably not Travolta ("undervalued actor" is part of the Eisner Formula).
I know the timeline. It's still convoluted.
And Disney didn't do the same thing. Disney bought 20th Century Fox, realized there was brand confusion because Murdoch still owned a lot of Fox-branded property, and dropped the Fox part accordingly and kept everything else including the logos.
Honestly, you're right. It absolutely
is convoluted. It's absolutely supposed to be. Not everything I do is supposed to totally make sense. The "logic" is that Triad is trying to expand their market with a "new" (actually really old) brand. So they split 20th and Fox back apart (they began as separate studios way back in the day) and made one a "for kids" brand. Would it have been better to just create a new label? Probably. But someone on the board felt that "Fox" was a child-friendly name ("Like Aesop!"). Tri-Star suing them? Again, not really worth the legal fees in my opinion, just egos getting involved, and trying to fight it wasn't worth the legal fees either, hence Triad settling out of court just to put an end to it all. Lord knows I've seen stupider corporate lawsuits iOTL.
Gulf+Western actually tried to buy 20th C Fox iOTL, but failed. That seemed like a rather unwieldy merger to me (so does Disney/Fox, actually, and I'm curious how they're going to make that work just from an administrative standpoint), so part of the fun for me was figuring out what to do with this lumbering giant, and dividing it into three parts makes sense from a certain corporate management standpoint. Room to grow both studios, or so I saw the corporate leadership thinking.
As a bit of a peek behind the curtain, I like a little chaos. So I have studios make a few convoluted buys and reorganizations. Did Disney really need the MGM brand? No, and see Bernie's frustrations in trying to "rebuild" a brand just as Hyperion was gaining international recognition in the earlier post. Part of it was honestly opportunistic on Disney's part rather than a part of a well-thought-out long term corporate growth strategy. Turner trying to buy up MGM in its entirety after just gobbling up CBS was borderline idiotic, and it cost him dearly. But Turner did something similar in OTL, and it cost him dearly there. Snagging Columbia was better thought out, but he's still in the midst of some serious growing pains making his "Gran Columbia" work, so stay tuned through the 1990s as The Mouth from the South tries to chew on the big bites that he took in the 1980s.
Your mileage may vary, of course. And that's great. Respectful disagreement is always welcome here and you stated your opinions totally respectfully, and I appreciate that.