The Dark Knight Rises Fighting Studio Corruption

[The Major]

LOL yo major have you gone mad. Nolan chose all of the other characters he wanted in and your saying that's not for him to dicide?????

You misundertand. I know it's up for him to choose. As is his right.

I'm looking forward to what villains he shows us if he makes another sequel.

LOL And you know he'll choose all the people that showed up before bane and do what he wants. I can't believe you bane.

I know.

 

[David Rice]

I hope you are right, David.

Me too.

 

[chaseter]

Not really.

How many people saw it just for Venom? I doubt most of the audience did. The general public probably didn't care whether he was in it or not.

It was the previous movies good reputations plus the stars plus Spider-man himself which had a bigger reason for that. They'd have broken records any way.

Blade Trinity and X3 had the same situation.

Without Venom they would have had a better movie which could have made it even more profitable then it was.

You seriously think Sandman and Kraven would have had as large of a pull on the audience? No. Venom is easily one of the top popular Spidey villians and marketing jumped on that.

Blade Trinity is a horrible example to parallel to because in no way is Blade as known as Spider-Man. X3 also didn't have the same situation because of the pre-production mess they were in with Singer leaving. Sony forced Venom on Raimi and they knew it would make them money and it did turn a profit and broke records opening day. What it didn't do was have good legs because of bad word of mouth from critics, and non-repeat viewings from fans displeased with the quality of the film.

 

[The Major]

You seriously think Sandman and Kraven would have had as large of a pull on the audience? No.

Depends how they were executed.

Riami is a very talented director. With the proper script and actors they could succeed.

They made Sandman work, didn't they? Even Harry's Goblin was great.

Venom is easily one of the top popular Spidey villains and marketing jumped on that.

Which would have only been a short bump because the movie failed to capitalize on it by making him a minor villain who acted more like a clown.

That's why it would have been a better idea to save him for Spider-man 4.

Blade Trinity is a horrible example to parallel to because in no way is Blade as known as Spider-Man.

The public still liked the previous movies to give it a chance. It still did very well despite the public not liking it. It would have much, much better if they had liked it.

Without those previous films it wouldn't have done half as well.

Like Spider-man 3 it wasted its villains, only it did not only worse since it was only Venom hurt by it but on a bigger scale. The concepts of Parker Posey's group, the government hunting Blade, Hannibal King, Dracula and the Nightstalkers could have all been good enough to keep the audience occupied with a fun story separately only it tanked all of them and destroyed the franchise's credibility in the process.

X3 also didn't have the same situation because of the pre-production mess they were in with Singer leaving.

That did hurt it but it was much worse then that.

Singer set them up beautifully with his films for the Phoenix Saga and they did nothing with it. All it had were the actors and the previous good films rep to lure people to see it. If it was an actual good movie like 1 and 2 it would have made much more money IMO. They definitely would not have had to abandon the primary X-men franchise by just focusing on spin-offs, too. They could have made X-men sequels and spin-offs.

They should have saved the cure story line for a sequel, too. It was a potentially great lead into Apocalypse instead of just rehashing Magneto again for the third time.

Sony forced Venom on Raimi and they knew it would make them money and it did turn a profit and broke records opening day.

The records would have been broken any way. Venom didn't really have much to do with that. That was in spite of the difficulties of venom. It would have made much more without that hinderance anchoring the movie down so it could reach its potential.

Like I said, short term gain. That burns out quickly and can turn off the repeat customers the next time you want to sell them something.

They hurt the franchise because they wanted quantity over quality, including damaging one of their big characters.

Given a good movie all to itself Venom could have bought it much more profits in the long term. But they only wanted short term and now Venom is in a bind creatively and his reputation is possibly damaged with the public because of it.

They would have gotten more financial success with him that way instead of forcing him into an already crowded movie.

This could have all been avoided if Marvel and Sony were more patient with their future sequels.

What it didn't do was have good legs because of bad word of mouth from critics, and non-repeat viewings from fans displeased with the quality of the film.

Fans weren't the only one displeased. Venom being there stopped the movie from reaching its potential as a film which means it never was able to reach its potential financially.

They should have had more faith in Riami and the franchise and stopped trying to imitate Batman and Robin by putting more villains then they needed into the story.

 

[ray243]

Now it is funny to see fans defending themselves from screwing the movie up.

Yeah...FANS screw the no movie upside down...not a real suprised.

 

[chaseter]

Depends how they were executed.

Riami is a very talented director. With the proper script and actors they could succeed.

They made Sandman work, didn't they? Even Harry's Goblin was great.



Which would have only been a short bump because the movie failed to capitalize on it by making him a minor villain who acted more like a clown.

That's why it would have been a better idea to save him for Spider-man 4.



The public still liked the previous movies to give it a chance. It still did very well despite the public not liking it. It would have much, much better if they had liked it.

Without those previous films it wouldn't have done half as well.

Like Spider-man 3 it wasted its villains, only it did not only worse since it was only Venom hurt by it but on a bigger scale. The concepts of Parker Posey's group, the government hunting Blade, Hannibal King, Dracula and the Nightstalkers could have all been good enough to keep the audience occupied with a fun story separately only it tanked all of them and destroyed the franchise's credibility in the process.



That did hurt it but it was much worse then that.

Singer set them up beautifully with his films for the Phoenix Saga and they did nothing with it. All it had were the actors and the previous good films rep to lure people to see it. If it was an actual good movie like 1 and 2 it would have made much more money IMO. They definitely would not have had to abandon the primary X-men franchise by just focusing on spin-offs, too. They could have made X-men sequels and spin-offs.

They should have saved the cure story line for a sequel, too. It was a potentially great lead into Apocalypse instead of just rehashing Magneto again for the third time.

The records would have been broken any way. Venom didn't really have much to do with that. That was in spite of the difficulties of venom. It would have made much more without that hinderance anchoring the movie down so it could reach its potential.

Like I said, short term gain. That burns out quickly and can turn off the repeat customers the next time you want to sell them something.

They hurt the franchise because they wanted quantity over quality, including damaging one of their big characters.

Given a good movie all to itself Venom could have bought it much more profits in the long term. But they only wanted short term and now Venom is in a bind creatively and his reputation is possibly damaged with the public because of it.

They would have gotten more financial success with him that way instead of forcing him into an already crowded movie.

This could have all been avoided if Marvel and Sony were more patient with their future sequels.



Fans weren't the only one displeased. Venom being there stopped the movie from reaching its potential as a film which means it never was able to reach its potential financially.

They should have had more faith in Riami and the franchise and stopped trying to imitate Batman and Robin by putting more villains then they needed into the story.

So this you agreeing with me that studios f-ked up SM3, X3, and other films? Because everything you said just strengthened my agrument.

 

[The Major]

Chaseter:

I'm unsure what you mean. I thought you liked what the studios did with the films.

 

[chaseter]

Chaseter:

I'm unsure what you mean. I thought you liked what the studios did with the films.

Which films...the ones I listed like SM3, X3, Blade 3, Shrek 3, etc???? From Fox, Sony, etc...???

I have no problems with what WB has done with Batman so far...allowing Nolan to do whatever he wants, just to report in on what he is doing. I am just afraid of what WB might do now that it is changing up the Potter films to make more money (A 2-parter Deathly Hallows, allowing Yates to streamline Order of the Phoenix, and bumping back Half Blood Price which is already comletely done).

 

[The Major]

Then I do agree with you completely.

 

[chaseter]

Then I do agree with you completely.

I disliked all those that I listed becase the studios interjected and it ruined those films.