AOL asks parent company to drop AOL from "AOL Time Warner"

I never liked this curious amalgum of corporate identity. I would be glad to see a return to "Time Warner", which is no worse that 20th Century Fox, which is an old familiar identity. Of course Fox seeks to shed the "20th Century" bit because it no longer sounds current. Never mind that film was obviously a medium that really took off in that century, and the name has historical roots. Like Time Warner, 20th Century Fox was a name formed by amalgmation. William Fox was one of those movie moguls who built vertical integration, producing content (both feature films and Movietone Newsreels), owning theaters (many cities have an old Fox movie palace, some of which are converted for stage today), and the distribution from production to theater, all of it called the Fox Film Corporation. Fox allied with Daryll Zanuck who left Warner Brothers and in 1933 formed his own 20th Century Pictures. This alliance gave us 20th Century Fox in '35.

Zanuck started off allied with United Artists and Joseph Schenck, but Zanuck got into a fight with UA. Schenck was caught in the middle and ultimatly sided with Zanuck. Zanuck was a movie producer (he had been head of production at Warner Bros), and had needed distribution of his pictures (which was fragile without theater ownership). When UA demonstrated a lack of commitment to its alliance with Fox (the dispute was over a stock swap), Zanuck turned to Fox.

Fox was a business man who organized his vertical movie business and had some capacity to defend and support innovative technology. As movie making became more sophisticated, Fox needed someone to handle that end of the business. After the earliest days of the movies it was no longer sufficient to get movies into theaters, you needed to get patrons into theaters too. Fox had the business and technical ability, he needed a movie producer. Enter Zanuck.

They merged their studios, and with them their stables of contract players. Fox offered a movie distribution network so complete it was charged with monopolism as well as technical innovation thorughout the movie-making process. Zanuck offered quality product. Shortly after the merger, the charged of monoplism brought Fox into court. The businessman tried to defend his hold on the market, but remained embattled throughout the late 30's as the control of the studio drifted over to Zanuck. Caught bribing a judge, Fox spent a few years in prison and was never allowed to regain his foot hold in Hollywood.

All of which has far more charm than the amalgumation of AOL Time Warner, which produced far less synergy than the amalgum of Fox Film Corporation and 20th Century Pictures.