Fox, The Infamous Studio, At It Again!

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

I'm not responding to all of this, but there are some things I'd like to reply to.

(Wall of Text ahead - you've been warned. Proceed at your own risk)

I used to have bitterness after X3 but, I haven't felt that in a while. I simply hold Fox accountable whenever they screw up or look like they're going to screw up a property right I'm interested in.

How exactly do you hold them accountable? Do you have some kind of authority over them? Or...?

What are you doing to hold them accountable?

Or do you simply mean you "recognize faults of the studio when making movies of a particular genre"? Because that's more accurate.

You are a common citizen, you have no power to hold Fox "accountable".

You're not some kind of movie watchdog, an avenger against the corporations who put their bottom line over artistic integrity.

You're a movie fan. When you're in a position to take action against Fox, then you can claim that you are "holding them accountable". Until then, recognize yourself for what you are - a movie fan who is expressing an opinion on a movie studio.

What are you suggesting? Since you're not a victim people who were disappointed with X3 should change their perspectives?

I actually stated that as a fan of the X-Men comics and cartoons, that I -would- be a victim of Fox's antics, seeing as how there were very severe changes to the material in X-Men: The Last Stand. Meaning, I know first hand, as well as anyone, what Fox is capable of.

Isn't this contradictory to your comment about the "fanboy perspective" and your statement about us having very personal opinions about Fox? It's obvious, that you have a bitter attitude towards fanboys that don't like Fox.

I have no problem with fanboys disliking Fox. Fox is a company, and they provide a product. If you do not enjoy the product that Fox delivers, you are entitled to that opinion, and to express it.

However, Fox does not "owe" you anything. You are not entitled to anything from Fox. Fox is not evil, nor "bad" for their tactics. They have particular policies that they follow, whether we agree with them or not, and that is as far as it goes.

But many seem to think that they are ENTITLED something from Fox, and that Fox is a bunch of corrupted horrible people. No, they are running a business. It is their business, and they can run it as they see fit. It's your right to disagree with it, but Fox is in no way shape or form obligated to cater to you. Perhaps it would be good business to take their customer into consideration, but they do what they deem necessary to run a successful business and make money.

Many of us don't think Fox or any other studio is evil. However, it's obvious that all businesses have some level of corruption. Hollywood studios are no exception to this. The reason why many of us are so criticial of Fox is because they have a track record that suggests they are the most corrupt.

I wouldn't call it "corrupt". They are running a business, and the point of running a business is to make money, and they are running THEIR OWN BUSINESS in a way they see fit.

Fox isn't running something that is owned by US. That would be corrupt. They are running something that is their own. They OWN the rights to make these movies. These franchises are their properties, and quite frankly, it's within their rights to do what they please with them.

They are also more than capable of making better products that I could enjoy.

Sure.

Don't trivialize this controversy. Multiple directors and writers have said they would never work at Fox again. No other studio has such a sour relationship with former employees of a production staff.

Where did I trivialize it? I agreed. Directors don't want to work there. Fine.

I don't see any harm in comparing the faults and failed potential of a studio I once loved to the way other studios studios are run.

Sure. I don't think I ever said otherwise.

That's true and it doesn't mean Fox and your company are free of criticism.

Again, true. My problem isn't the criticism of Fox. It's the feeling of entitlement from fanboys that somehow they are owed something by Fox, and when they don't get it, Fox has somehow robbed them of something.

Overeacting again. You're suggestion is silly that someone who disagrees with your opinion couldn't have watched the whole movie.

No, it's more along the lines of people who blatantly IGNORE things that are / aren't in the movie and pretend that reality is whatever perspective best suits their argument.

You can argue whether or not it was developed properly or not, but Magneto's manipulation of Jean Grey IS in the movie. It's there. It can't be questioned. Yet it was stated by the quote I replied to that the manipulation never happened.

Yes, it did. Perhaps you don't think it was developed well enough. That is a debate that we can have. But it's not an opinion about the manipulation being in the film. It IS there.

We get it. We've known you've felt this way for years. It's your opinion and you're entitled to it. Just like I'm entitled to continue disliking X-Men 3 and other fox films.

You absolutely are.

Nothing that I haven't heard before so there's no point in saying much about this. However, I will comment on one thing. I'm still convinced that your expectations were dramatically lowered during the second time you saw this movie because your two reviews of this movie are a night and day difference. You even admitted that the film you watched wasn't what you expected. The only way I could find any enjoyment in X-Men 3 is if I intentionally lower my expectations. I've never done that for any movie and I'm not planning on making that a habit.

You're right, my 2 reviews ARE different. I don't think it's because of lowered expectations. It's because of things that I still dislike about the film.

An ending has a HUGE impact on my enjoyment of a film. X2 became TONS better after Jean's sacrifice at the end. More recently, I was rather off and on with Watchmen, thinking some parts of it were a tad boring, while other moments were very engaging and entertaining. I happened to REALLY like the ending, and I walked out of the theatre with a rather positive view of the film, a lot to do with the ending. I had never read the graphic novel so I didn't know what to expect, but I rather enjoyed the ending because I felt like it wasn't your typical fantasy / sci-fi type of ending. I rather enjoyed the shades of grey in the ending, and the moral dillema brought up at the end.

The same is true of X-Men: The Last Stand. I admit I was already a bit bitter over the film because of the handling of Cyclops and Xavier. There were a couple other things in the film that didn't sit right to me, and seeing the ending where Rogue was cured, but Magneto's powers came back and Xavier was still alive in another body, I rolled my eyes walking out of the theatre. It was a big part of my initial disappointment.

To this day, the ending of X-Men: The Last Stand is something I'm not particularly fond of. There are about 2 sequences in the film which I think are pretty bad, and really bring the overall film down for me - the span of time between Xavier's death, and Wolverine's fight in the woods, and then the post-Alcatraz ending sequence. I'm not really fond of either of these spans in the movie.

Going into the movie the 2nd time, knowing the certain flaws that the film has, I was able to watch the movie and appreciate the things that I thought were done well. And to this day, after 7 theatre viewings and countless DVD viewings, I appreciate the things the movie did right, and get a very high level of entertainment from them. I still dislike the parts of the movie that I disliked from the beginning, but I am able to accept the good and the bad.

For me, I am able to enjoy the movie. For others, the bad outweighs the good. I never said that was a problem.

What I had a problem with back in the days was again, the sense of entitlement from the fanboys, the complaining about things that are blatantly false, and the double standards - complaining about certain tactics in X-Men: The Last Stand but ignoring and excusing the same types of tactics in Singer's films.

You're being completely silly.

You obviously missed the point of my "how many negatives was that". That was me sutly making a joke at my grammar when I think I busted out with a triple negative. It had nothing to do with the count of negative opinions regarding the movie, but rather a jab at my own grammar.

Stop acting like people haven't put much thought into why they hate this movie. I spent a whole month just disecting all of Kinberg's contradictory statements. Before that I got into mutiple debates over what I still see as weak story structure and plot. I also had problems with inconsistent science in the X-Men world. The poorly choreographed fight scenes didn't impress me either. I spent time pointing out blantant instances where Fox falsely advertised this movie. There's plenty of negative things I could mention but, I wasn't planning on doing this because I thought these debates had ended awhile ago. You said there's no point in debating these subjects just a few months ago in the X-Men forum yet you are clearly playing the role of an antagonist in this thread.

I don't recall saying that there's no point debating these topics. I remember making a comment to you in the Wolverine forums because in every post you make in that forum, you mention how you won't be seeing the Wolverine film. I remarked that it was rather redundant.

I never made any kind of comment about you actually expressing your opinions on Wolverine, or X-Men: The Last Stand.

As for the other stuff:

-Yes, there were plenty of contradictory statements regarding this film. I don't remember them, what they were exactly, but I remember plenty of things in the final film that didn't gel with what Kinberg had stated.

And yes, I also know all about the false marketing. The false marketing is probably my biggest problem with the film, because all of the TV spots and trailers promise a different movie than what we got. Almost literally. I have never seen a movie with so many scenes cut out or altered from the trailers and TV spots. Half of the final trailer isn't in the movie, or is in an altered form.

The scenes in the trailers and TV spots promised a better movie than what we got. I don't believe I've ever denied this, because my "dislike" of the film comes more from what it COULD HAVE BEEN, than what it actually was.

-Plotlines and structure, choreography, etc... is pointless, because it's a matter of opinion. I'd say that the story development was inferior to that of Singer's films, but I wouldn't say it's bad. I don't think the choreography is any worse than Singer's films - in fact I think that the Wolverine vs. Lady Deathstrike fight is the worst choreography in the entire series. Science - I don't think the science was any more inconsistent in this film than it was in the rest of the franchise, nor in any other sci-fi movie series for that matter. Again, it comes back to double standards. There are "science inconsistencies" in Singer's films also, but those are always excused and justified, while Fox and Ratner are crucified by the fanboys for the mistakes in the 3rd.

In retrospect, these last couple of posts have convinced me you're probably insecure about your perspective on X-Men 3 if after 3 years you still can't except the fact there are many people who will continue to dislike the movie. I guess it's really not that surprising because it's human nature to act this way when your opinion is in the minority and you want others to conform to it thereby, making yourself feel better about your perspective.

No, I'm not insecure. If I was insecure, I don't think I'd be so open about my view of the film, knowing how unaccepted a positive view of X-Men: The Last Stand is around these parts. I have always been open that this film reaches higher highs than Singer's films. I have always been open that the Phoenix climax on Alcatraz is quite possibly my favorite moment of the entire trilogy. I've even gone on record stating that I'm almost glad that Singer didn't make this film, because after seeing it it's become obvious to me that Singer held back GREATLY in the epic action department, and kept the characters VERY restained, to the point that at times, it doesn't even feel like a comic book movie. That there are things in X-Men: The Last Stand that I think were brilliant touches to the movie, characters, and overall universe that we NEVER would have gotten from Singer.

If I was insecure, I doubt I'd be so open with such highly unaccepted opinions.

Oh yes, I've also said that ALL of the X-Men films are better than The Dark Knight. How's that for insecure?

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

I've gotten over Fox and their stupid decisions a long time ago. The best way to show Fox that you don't appreciate their business is to don't watch their shows, don't buy the DVD's, and don't go to the theatrical releases.

Being an employee at the theatre you can rest assure that when Wolverine is released it won't get a penny from me. I'll attend the free employee preview and watch it that way.

My long winded rant against the Fox haters can be summed up with these few words.

 

[DDS]

I've decided, after going through the Deadpool disscussion thread that this pretty much sums it up...

[YT]UsUxnAKlJWQ[/YT]

 

[Theweepeople]

I'm not responding to all of this, but there are some things I'd like to reply to.

(Wall of Text ahead - you've been warned. Proceed at your own risk)

Was I seriously supposed to feel apprehensive before reading all of this?

How exactly do you hold them accountable? Do you have some kind of authority over them? Or...?

What are you doing to hold them accountable?

Through my voice on the internet, voice in the real world, and with my wallet. All it took was a colossal second weekend dropoff and a couple of thousand pissed off Cyclops fans posting messages in the X3 forums to convince Fox to give the character an unnecessary role in Wolverine's movie. The fanboy voice had an impact.

Or do you simply mean you "recognize faults of the studio when making movies of a particular genre"? Because that's more accurate.

No it isn't more accurate. I'm recognizing these faults on a popular fanboy website that Fox employees observe. My opinion and the ones of fanboys on other websites have influenced Fox executives to go out of their way to falsely advertise their recent crapfest comic book/sci-fi films.

-When the infamous X3 script caused an uproar after being leaked in 2005 Simon Kinberg and Zak Penn told the fans many changes were made to it.

-A couple months later a ridiculously wrong spoiler review came out http://www.**************.com/x-men_movies/x-men_3_the_last_stand/news/?a=2306

-Sometime in January of 2006 an X3 review came out on AICN and Fox immediately filed a lawsuit on the merit that the review was false. A friend of mine read the review before it was taken down. He told me that in the film Professor X, Cyclops, and Jean Grey die. He also said rogue, Mystique, and Magneto get cured.

-The idea for Simon Kinberg and Zak Penn to interact daily with the hardcore fanboys on xverse.com was obviously conjured up by nervous Fox executives. Fanboy and movie writer interaction isn't very common and after re-reading some of Kinberg's comments I could sense that he was getting weary as the X3 release date drew near.

-In 2007 Fox released public statements on AICN pertaining to the Galactus cloud and run time controveries which all turned out to be false.


All of these deceitful tactics Fox used to falsely advertise and downplay the negative informational leaks are the result of fanboy criticism, communication, and awareness on the internet.

You are a common citizen, you have no power to hold Fox "accountable".

That's really simplistic thinking. Throughout history there have been instances when Civilians revolted against corrupt governments. Influencing a corrupt company to sell better quality products to consumers shouldn't be too far-fetched for the average discontended citizen.

Just take the auto industry as an example. That industry was in decline for decades because american car dealers kept manufactoring fuel inefficient cars while the foreign companies focused on developing new technology. I and many other americans have indeed held this industry accountable by not buying their deficient vehicles.

You're not some kind of movie watchdog, an avenger against the corporations who put their bottom line over artistic integrity.

You're a movie fan. When you're in a position to take action against Fox, then you can claim that you are "holding them accountable". Until then, recognize yourself for what you are - a movie fan who is expressing an opinion on a movie studio.

All it takes is a few thousand disguntled fanboy and mainstream audience members spreading bad news to have an impact on a film. X-Men 3's amazing second weekend dropoff and final gross are evidence of this. It wasn't just poor mainstream critic reviews that hurt X3's domestic gross.
I'm a movie customer and I'm happy I played a role in holding Fox accoutable by outwardly expressing my disgust to friends, family members, and co-workers thereby convincing many to avoid seeing X3. I can only marvel at the impact these people had on spreading some of the bad news to other people.

I actually stated that as a fan of the X-Men comics and cartoons, that I -would- be a victim of Fox's antics, seeing as how there were very severe changes to the material in X-Men: The Last Stand. Meaning, I know first hand, as well as anyone, what Fox is capable of.

That's nice. I feel no shame in admitting I'm a victim of Fox's inability to make better quality X-Men films. You claming you're not a victim doesn't change my feelings.

I have no problem with fanboys disliking Fox.

Some of your more recent posts suggest otherwise.

Fox is a company, and they provide a product. If you do not enjoy the product that Fox delivers, you are entitled to that opinion, and to express it.

See above response.

However, Fox does not "owe" you anything. You are not entitled to anything from Fox. Fox is not evil, nor "bad" for their tactics. They have particular policies that they follow, whether we agree with them or not, and that is as far as it goes.

Theorically, you could come up with an argument for why a company doesn't owe customers anything if they only care about profit. However, the theory breaks down in the real world because all companies want and need their customer's money to make a profit. If a company wants some of my hard earned money they better produce a quality product I feel obligated to buy. So from a certain perspective all companies do in fact owe their customers a degree of quality.

I also think Fox owes it to themselves to make the most out of their property rights instead of allowing them to deteriorate into poorly written films that suffer at the boxoffice. It's smarter business, solidifies the current customer business relationship, and can draw in new customers.

But many seem to think that they are ENTITLED something from Fox, and that Fox is a bunch of corrupted horrible people. No, they are running a business. It is their business, and they can run it as they see fit. It's your right to disagree with it, but Fox is in no way shape or form obligated to cater to you.

Sounds pretty repetitive and redundant yet theorically I agree that there's no obligation for catering. However, you're missing the bigger picture. If a business owns and mismanages a form of entertainment that a large demographic of people are passionate about they shouldn't expect to make profit if consumers are unhappy. Take professional sports as an example. Some lucrative sports franchises have fallen apart due to owners not caring that the fans want to see their team succeed.

Perhaps it would be good business to take their customer into consideration, but they do what they deem necessary to run a successful business and make money.

Perhaps? After having their worst boxoffice gross in a decade, seeing their stock drop 30 points, and being forced to consider rebooting 3 dead franchises(Planet of the Apes, Daredevil, Fantastic Four) I'm pretty damn sure Fox is at least considering what the average movie consumer wants from them.

 

[Theweepeople]

I wouldn't call it "corrupt".

I would call it corrupt because there are different types of corruption. The two most obvious are legal and moral corruption. I see Fox as being morally corrupt if they don't value all the basic principals which are integral to running a business.

They are running a business, and the point of running a business is to make money, and they are running THEIR OWN BUSINESS in a way they see fit.

What happened to the importance of running a business with the consumer's desire in mind? My dad was in sales for over 30 years. One of the basic principals he learned and taught me at a very young age was the customer is always right. This isn't a new revelation nor is a hard concept to understand. It's been one of the driving forces behind every successful businesses since the beginning of time.

Every business that disregards this simple concept will decline at some point. Fox's lousy 2008 year shows they were not an exception to this rule.

Fox isn't running something that is owned by US. That would be corrupt. They are running something that is their own. They OWN the rights to make these movies. These franchises are their properties, and quite frankly, it's within their rights to do what they please with them.

Of course I think the government is corrupt legally and morally. But, I still say Fox has some level of corruption if they're only interested in profit percentages and have no regard for what their consumers wants.

Also, Fox isn't just innocently marketing their crap films to a limited audience. They've consistently shown they will resort to using every deceitful false advertising tactic to cheat fans of every movie genre out of their money with dumbed down entertainment.

Sure.

Wouldn't you want to see a business make better products for all of us?

Where did I trivialize it? I agreed. Directors don't want to work there. Fine.

You originally said directors might have problems there. That doesn't sound very convincing.

Sure. I don't think I ever said otherwise.

Well, your latest posts aren't suggesting this. You said you get annoyed at the Fox hate. There's no denying the fact that you have an agenda against fanboys who criticize Fox.

Again, true. My problem isn't the criticism of Fox. It's the feeling of entitlement from fanboys that somehow they are owed something by Fox, and when they don't get it, Fox has somehow robbed them of something.

You are misunderstanding why fanboys are so angry with Fox. This has little to do with entitlement. It has virtually everything to do with potential. Fox has the resources to make great comic book and sci-fi films. When Fox consistently fails to accomplish this of course fanboys are going to get angry and sometimes say things out of character.

No, it's more along the lines of people who blatantly IGNORE things that are / aren't in the movie and pretend that reality is whatever perspective best suits their argument.

Couldn't you express your viewpoints in a manner that is less confrontational and more tolerant?

You can argue whether or not it was developed properly or not, but Magneto's manipulation of Jean Grey IS in the movie. It's there. It can't be questioned. Yet it was stated by the quote I replied to that the manipulation never happened.

I never denied this. I just didn't see it consistently. I only saw the manipulation in one horribly executed short scene. I didn't see any degree of it in the rest of the scenes Jean and Magneto had together.

Yes, it did. Perhaps you don't think it was developed well enough. That is a debate that we can have. But it's not an opinion about the manipulation being in the film. It IS there.

You're right. I thought it was barely there. In fact I thought Jean was playing the role of manipulator behind the scenes. She clearly was manipulating Magneto in one scene and her nonchalant attitude until the final scenes on Alcatraz suggests Magneto had no control over her actions.

You're right, my 2 reviews ARE different. I don't think it's because of lowered expectations. It's because of things that I still dislike about the film.

An ending has a HUGE impact on my enjoyment of a film. X2 became TONS better after Jean's sacrifice at the end. More recently, I was rather off and on with Watchmen, thinking some parts of it were a tad boring, while other moments were very engaging and entertaining. I happened to REALLY like the ending, and I walked out of the theatre with a rather positive view of the film, a lot to do with the ending. I had never read the graphic novel so I didn't know what to expect, but I rather enjoyed the ending because I felt like it wasn't your typical fantasy / sci-fi type of ending. I rather enjoyed the shades of grey in the ending, and the moral dillema brought up at the end.

The same is true of X-Men: The Last Stand. I admit I was already a bit bitter over the film because of the handling of Cyclops and Xavier. There were a couple other things in the film that didn't sit right to me, and seeing the ending where Rogue was cured, but Magneto's powers came back and Xavier was still alive in another body, I rolled my eyes walking out of the theatre. It was a big part of my initial disappointment.

To this day, the ending of X-Men: The Last Stand is something I'm not particularly fond of. There are about 2 sequences in the film which I think are pretty bad, and really bring the overall film down for me - the span of time between Xavier's death, and Wolverine's fight in the woods, and then the post-Alcatraz ending sequence. I'm not really fond of either of these spans in the movie.

Going into the movie the 2nd time, knowing the certain flaws that the film has, I was able to watch the movie and appreciate the things that I thought were done well. And to this day, after 7 theatre viewings and countless DVD viewings, I appreciate the things the movie did right, and get a very high level of entertainment from them. I still dislike the parts of the movie that I disliked from the beginning, but I am able to accept the good and the bad.

For me, I am able to enjoy the movie. For others, the bad outweighs the good. I never said that was a problem.

Well, that all sounds interesting but, I'm still not convinced for obvious reasons. I'm not suggesting that you intentionally lowered your expectations. What I am saying is that it's logical that your expectations were lowered because you already saw the movie once. Each viewing of a movie changes my feelings towards it. Sometimes subtle and other times significant.

What I had a problem with back in the days was again, the sense of entitlement from the fanboys, the complaining about things that are blatantly false, and the double standards - complaining about certain tactics in X-Men: The Last Stand but ignoring and excusing the same types of tactics in Singer's films.

I can see why someone might have this opinion but, I disagree. There is variation in each individual system of thinking used by people in evaluating the quality of films. The standards within any system should be different everytime since no two movies are identical. It's for this reason that I don't see any double standard in the way I analyze the quality of X3 because the standards I use are greatly influenced by my expectations.

I ended up enjoying X1 simply because my expectations for it were so low. Now I can't watch the movie anymore without getting bored(Wolverine vs Mystique was the only good action sequence) after 10 minutes. However, back in those days the stakes for X2 had been raised. I was expecting better action, plot, dialogue, and run time. X2 accomplished all of this for me even though there were still flaws just not as visible as X1.

Of course my expectations for X3 were raised so I was looking forward to an improvement in everything. I wasn't closely following the productions of these films back then so I didn't think Singer's departure meant the end of the X-franchise. I was concerned about the AICN script leak but, I thought it could work with the proper execution. Overall, I was pretty neutral on the initial hiring of Brett Ratner. My expectations increased after reading the false spoiler review released in the fall of 2005. The two great trailers suggested fox spent a lot of time marketing this film so I was convinced dedicated work went into it's production.

Kinberg's assertions that X3's action scenes were as epic as Saving Private Ryan, Brave Heart, and Empire Strikes back didn't prepare me for the travesty that I would witness. I didn't realize I was going to be disappointed with X3 until a few days before it's release. Even if I somehow determined a way to lower my expectations it wouldn't have made a difference because I knew where they had been previously set.

You obviously missed the point of my "how many negatives was that". That was me sutly making a joke at my grammar when I think I busted out with a triple negative. It had nothing to do with the count of negative opinions regarding the movie, but rather a jab at my own grammar.

Subtleties are often misinterpreted. Decrease the subtleties and I'll decrease the misinterpretation.

I don't recall saying that there's no point debating these topics.

Here's a reminder
http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=314451&page=2
I thought you were serious about this. I know I sure am. I debated issues on the damn movie for well over a year and I'm really tired of it. There's no subject pertaining to X3 that hasn't been debated and I certaintly won't be responding to whatever you have to say about my perspective on Magneto manipulating Jean.

I remember making a comment to you in the Wolverine forums because in every post you make in that forum, you mention how you won't be seeing the Wolverine film. I remarked that it was rather redundant.

I don't think it was any more redundant than the number of times that you've let everyone know how often you watch the X-Men films. There's no need to start multiple threads on this subject.

I never made any kind of comment about you actually expressing your opinions on Wolverine, or X-Men: The Last Stand.

You've definitely had issues with me expressing my opinions on both films. You got annoyed and confrontational when I analyzed Kinberg's statements. You took a statement I made about Wolverine out of context in a failed attempt to make me look bad. Remember this encounter.
http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=301958&page=81

If I was someone with no knowledge of Wolverine's troubled and sometimes bizzare production history you might have had a point but, that clearly wasn't the case. I remember having a similar encounter with you in the fantastic four 2 forum where you basically did the same exact thing. I'm now convinced you were definitely trying to be a dick in both situations.

As for the other stuff:

-Yes, there were plenty of contradictory statements regarding this film. I don't remember them, what they were exactly, but I remember plenty of things in the final film that didn't gel with what Kinberg had stated.

And yes, I also know all about the false marketing. The false marketing is probably my biggest problem with the film, because all of the TV spots and trailers promise a different movie than what we got. Almost literally. I have never seen a movie with so many scenes cut out or altered from the trailers and TV spots. Half of the final trailer isn't in the movie, or is in an altered form.

The scenes in the trailers and TV spots promised a better movie than what we got. I don't believe I've ever denied this, because my "dislike" of the film comes more from what it COULD HAVE BEEN, than what it actually was.

With the exception of your first review I never thought you were that angry about the film we got.

-Plotlines and structure, choreography, etc... is pointless, because it's a matter of opinion. I'd say that the story development was inferior to that of Singer's films, but I wouldn't say it's bad. I don't think the choreography is any worse than Singer's films - in fact I think that the Wolverine vs. Lady Deathstrike fight is the worst choreography in the entire series. Science - I don't think the science was any more inconsistent in this film than it was in the rest of the franchise, nor in any other sci-fi movie series for that matter. Again, it comes back to double standards. There are "science inconsistencies" in Singer's films also, but those are always excused and justified, while Fox and Ratner are crucified by the fanboys for the mistakes in the 3rd.

I already commented on why I'm not seeing these so-called double standards. Most people had expectations for the best quality X-Men film.

No, I'm not insecure. If I was insecure, I don't think I'd be so open about my view of the film, knowing how unaccepted a positive view of X-Men: The Last Stand is around these parts. I have always been open that this film reaches higher highs than Singer's films. I have always been open that the Phoenix climax on Alcatraz is quite possibly my favorite moment of the entire trilogy. I've even gone on record stating that I'm almost glad that Singer didn't make this film, because after seeing it it's become obvious to me that Singer held back GREATLY in the epic action department, and kept the characters VERY restained, to the point that at times, it doesn't even feel like a comic book movie. That there are things in X-Men: The Last Stand that I think were brilliant touches to the movie, characters, and overall universe that we NEVER would have gotten from Singer.

If I was insecure, I doubt I'd be so open with such highly unaccepted opinions.

Being open about your opinions maybe an example of security but, being intolerant is not one. People who feel secure about their opinions consistently act rational and show composure during debates. There was nothing even-tempered or rational about the way you responded to my criticisms of Kinberg's lies. What's really bizzare about your behavior is we weren't having a debate, nor were my criticisms directed at you or your opinion of X3. However, for some inexplicable reason you took it personally and since then your attitude towards me and other X3/Fox haters has been very negative.

Oh yes, I've also said that ALL of the X-Men films are better than The Dark Knight. How's that for insecure?

This is relative and I don't see how this has much to do with security. It's mainly about personal preference. Finding more enjoyment in something that others were unable doesn't make your opinion and opposing ones any stronger or weaker.

However, I'm glad you brought this up because I also remember you calling this film and many other non X-Men comic book movies overated. Whatever standards you're using to evaluate the X-Men films seem to be different from the ones used to examine other CBM's. Someone could easily accuse you of having double standards in regards to these opinions.

 

[K.B.]

Has Tom Rothman begun posting on the Hype? t:

 

[thejon93]

Has Tom Rothman begun posting on the Hype? t:

Yes

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

Was I seriously supposed to feel apprehensive before reading all of this?

No, it's a warning for weary forum goers that what follows is a long winded opinion piece. Stop taking everything so seriously, not everything is some kind of knock against you.

Through my voice on the internet, voice in the real world, and with my wallet. All it took was a colossal second weekend dropoff and a couple of thousand pissed off Cyclops fans posting messages in the X3 forums to convince Fox to give the character an unnecessary role in Wolverine's movie. The fanboy voice had an impact.

Fanboys have dellusions of grandeur that everything they complain about actually makes a difference.

Cyclops is being tossed in this film because the writer of the script is a comic fan, and the character is marketable, just like Gambit is. A movie full of Wraith, Maverick, and Silverfox won't really have much appeal to the mainstream audience, but throw in a Cyclops and a Gambit (the latter of which has been their "get out of jail free" in their pocket, so to speak, to cash in on free popularity) and all of a sudden there's a bit more marketability.

Speaking of dropoffs, Watchmen had a pretty horrible dropoff also, along with horrible reviews.

These are all things that you cite as proof of Fox's incompetence with X-Men: The Last Stand - I guess WB and Watchmen were incompetent also? Or do you only bring this stuff up when it suits your argument?

That's really simplistic thinking. Throughout history there have been instances when Civilians revolted against corrupt governments. Influencing a corrupt company to sell better quality products to consumers shouldn't be too far-fetched for the average discontended citizen.

The policies of a business and the methods they use to market and creatre their products is a lot different than revolting against a corrupt government.

THIS is the exact fanboy sensationalism that irritates me. Somehow Fox's business practices OF THEIR OWN BUSINESS is comparable to corrupt dictatorship governments.

Fox is the only one at loss if their business practices stink. If they suck, and nobody buys their product, Fox will be the one going out of business, and Rothman will lose his job.

To this point, the general audience seems to be satisfied enough with their products since they still remain in business as one of the biggest studios in Hollywood.

All it takes is a few thousand disguntled fanboy and mainstream audience members spreading bad news to have an impact on a film. X-Men 3's amazing second weekend dropoff and final gross are evidence of this. It wasn't just poor mainstream critic reviews that hurt X3's domestic gross.

Fanboy satisfaction and good word of mouth surely hasn't helped Watchmen, as it's been plagued by dropoffs just about as big as X-Men: The Last Stand and horrendous reviews across the board outside of comic book fanboys.

I'm a movie customer and I'm happy I played a role in holding Fox accoutable by outwardly expressing my disgust to friends, family members, and co-workers thereby convincing many to avoid seeing X3. I can only marvel at the impact these people had on spreading some of the bad news to other people.

Obviously didn't have much impact since the movie was still one of the top grossing films of the year, broke records, and hit a home run with DVD sales.

That's nice. I feel no shame in admitting I'm a victim of Fox's inability to make better quality X-Men films. You claming you're not a victim doesn't change my feelings.

And I feel no shame in admitting that I don't allow a MOVIE to have such a huge impact on my life that I regard the studio behind said movie as "evil", and "corrupt", and compare them to the Hussein's, Hitler's, and Castro's of the world.

Theorically, you could come up with an argument for why a company doesn't owe customers anything if they only care about profit. However, the theory breaks down in the real world because all companies want and need their customer's money to make a profit. If a company wants some of my hard earned money they better produce a quality product I feel obligated to buy. So from a certain perspective all companies do in fact owe their customers a degree of quality.

It is definitely within good business tactics to satisfy your customer base and give them what they want. The difference is, it is still Fox's decision to run their business as they see fit, and if they choose to pinch pennies at every corner then that is their porogative.

I also think Fox owes it to themselves to make the most out of their property rights instead of allowing them to deteriorate into poorly written films that suffer at the boxoffice. It's smarter business, solidifies the current customer business relationship, and can draw in new customers.

They still haven't flopped at the box office with their comic movies tho. Their comic book movies have all provided a profit to them. In the end, Fox doesn't care how they get it, as long as they do get it.

Sounds pretty repetitive and redundant yet theorically I agree that there's no obligation for catering. However, you're missing the bigger picture. If a business owns and mismanages a form of entertainment that a large demographic of people are passionate about they shouldn't expect to make profit if consumers are unhappy. Take professional sports as an example. Some lucrative sports franchises have fallen apart due to owners not caring that the fans want to see their team succeed.

Sure, but they still make a profit, and are at rights to run their team as they see fit.

I am a San Francisco Giants fan, I know all about team ownerships who care only about the bottom line, and not the product on the field. It frustrates me watching the team penny pinch, instead of trying to produce a quality product.

I may disagree with their tactics, but I am not sitting her claiming I am being slighted by the management.

If it bothers me that much, I can choose to not buy Giants tickets and merchandise. But what I don't do is run around claiming that they "owe" me something, and that they are a horribly corrupt organization that the fans should rise up and revolt against.

It's called keeping things in perspective. Something fanboys don't tend to do.

Perhaps? After having their worst boxoffice gross in a decade, seeing their stock drop 30 points, and being forced to consider rebooting 3 dead franchises(Planet of the Apes, Daredevil, Fantastic Four) I'm pretty damn sure Fox is at least considering what the average movie consumer wants from them.

Probably not, because I don't think that Daredevil, Fantastic 4, or Planet of the Apes are really in high demand.

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

I would call it corrupt because there are different types of corruption. The two most obvious are legal and moral corruption. I see Fox as being morally corrupt if they don't value all the basic principals which are integral to running a business.

There is nothing in the least bit "morally corrupt" about Fox's business tactics. And it is THIS mentality that I am talking about. Fanboys don't know how to keep things in perspective.

What happened to the importance of running a business with the consumer's desire in mind? My dad was in sales for over 30 years. One of the basic principals he learned and taught me at a very young age was the customer is always right. This isn't a new revelation nor is a hard concept to understand. It's been one of the driving forces behind every successful businesses since the beginning of time.

As someone who has been in business for my entire working career myself, I have also learned the TRUTH that no, the customer is NOT always right.

Every business that disregards this simple concept will decline at some point. Fox's lousy 2008 year shows they were not an exception to this rule.

Then let them. That's capitalism for you. Sink or swim. If Fox fails, that's on them. And they will suffer for it. But capitalism is all about being able to fail, which is why all this bail out stuff is so controversial.

Of course I think the government is corrupt legally and morally. But, I still say Fox has some level of corruption if they're only interested in profit percentages and have no regard for what their consumers wants.

ALL businesses are only concerned with profit, it's just a matter of how they go about getting that profit.

Also, Fox isn't just innocently marketing their crap films to a limited audience. They've consistently shown they will resort to using every deceitful false advertising tactic to cheat fans of every movie genre out of their money with dumbed down entertainment.

I wouldn't go that far. I've seen plenty of films that are marketed differently than what the movie actually is. It's called advertising.

Wouldn't you want to see a business make better products for all of us?

Sure, but just like any other business out there, if I don't like their product, I simply won't buy it, and that's where it ends. I don't hold some kind of grudge and feel personally slighted because the company made a product I did not enjoy.

You originally said directors might have problems there. That doesn't sound very convincing.

No, you're just arguing semantic. I said "might" because I have not personally researched this stuff, because I personally don't care. I don't go off of 3rd party information blindly. So for the sake of argument, I agree with you that some directors don't want to for Fox, but I'm not going to state something absolutely when I have no personal knowledge of it.

Well, your latest posts aren't suggesting this. You said you get annoyed at the Fox hate. There's no denying the fact that you have an agenda against fanboys who criticize Fox.

No, I have an agenda against fanboys who have no perspective, and feel it as a personal assault against them when a movie studio releases a film that they don't like, and resort to claims of corruption and evil tactics.

You are misunderstanding why fanboys are so angry with Fox. This has little to do with entitlement. It has virtually everything to do with potential. Fox has the resources to make great comic book and sci-fi films. When Fox consistently fails to accomplish this of course fanboys are going to get angry and sometimes say things out of character.

"Failing" is a matter of personal opinion. I have zero problem what so ever with Fox's comic book films. The X-Men films are pretty much everything I could have ever wanted to see as a lifetime X-Men fan. The Fantastic 4 movies are good, fun, engaging entertainment. As a fan of the Hitman games, I was overall satisfied with the movie (not saying I didn't have complaints, of course). The first AvP I thought was pretty well made for it's genre and type of movie (the only movie of the 2 franchises that I thought was anything close to good was Alien - the rest of the Alien films and both Predator movies I thought sucked pretty bad). Shoot, I even own Daredevil.

I'd say that Fox's catalog of comic book movies is a lot better than a lot of the garbage that's out there comic-book film wise. I.E. Blade 2, Blade: Trinity, Hellboy, Catwoman......

Couldn't you express your viewpoints in a manner that is less confrontational and more tolerant?

The fanboys sure don't.

If my opinions weren't buried in a wall of text, and were read by more than just you, there is NO WAY IN HELL that I would get away with saying that I think the X-Men films are better than Batman Begins / The Dark Knight, or that Del Toro is an awful director. There's no way in hell I'd get away with saying that 300 wasn't really that great of a movie.

Well, that all sounds interesting but, I'm still not convinced for obvious reasons. I'm not suggesting that you intentionally lowered your expectations. What I am saying is that it's logical that your expectations were lowered because you already saw the movie once. Each viewing of a movie changes my feelings towards it. Sometimes subtle and other times significant.

Or, there could also be the fact that what some people call "lowered expectations" is actually going into the movie with your mind already made up that the movie is going to suck.

Which is partially the case with my first viewing of X-Men: The Last Stand. I was so embittered with the changes to the source material the first time around that I was more caught up in those than I was actually enjoying the movie for what it was.

Which is the case with a lot of fanboys - they make their mind up ahead of time, and justify a negative attitude and not willing to enjoy it regardless with "lowered expectations".

I can see why someone might have this opinion but, I disagree. There is variation in each individual system of thinking used by people in evaluating the quality of films. The standards within any system should be different everytime since no two movies are identical. It's for this reason that I don't see any double standard in the way I analyze the quality of X3 because the standards I use are greatly influenced by my expectations.

What you're saying doesn't even make sense.

Sure, no 2 movies are the same, but a movie that is a DIRECT SEQUEL to another does in fact have a lot of connection to the film previous - therefore allowing certain flaws in one film but not another is in fact a double standard.

Here's a reminder
http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=314451&page=2
I thought you were serious about this. I know I sure am. I debated issues on the damn movie for well over a year and I'm really tired of it. There's no subject pertaining to X3 that hasn't been debated and I certaintly won't be responding to whatever you have to say about my perspective on Magneto manipulating Jean.

I even stated in that post you're trying to get me on that there is NOTHING wrong with conversation about the film, and that I still enjoy it.

But the heated conversation about "THEY GOT THIS WRONG!!! OMG'ZZZZ!!!11" is pointless.

Expressing disappointments or satisfactions, and discussing them is fine, and I even stated that in my post.

I don't think it was any more redundant than the number of times that you've let everyone know how often you watch the X-Men films. There's no need to start multiple threads on this subject.

I never have started a thread on how many times I've seen X-Men: The Last Stand or any other X-Men film. Have I mentioned it? Absolutely.

You've definitely had issues with me expressing my opinions on both films. You got annoyed and confrontational when I analyzed Kinberg's statements. You took a statement I made about Wolverine out of context in a failed attempt to make me look bad. Remember this encounter.
http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=301958&page=81

Yes I do, and I still stand by what I said. You have made it quite clear time and time again that you will allow reviews and runtimes to determine your interest in a film, instead of relying on your own interest in the film.

Never once have I relied on a review for my interest of a film. I can form my own opinion on whether or not I am interested in a film by what I see from commercials and trailers. If I think a movie looks interesting, I will watch it, and no amount of bad reviews will stop me, and if I think a movie looks like crap, no amount of praise will change my opinion on it.

If I was someone with no knowledge of Wolverine's troubled and sometimes bizzare production history you might have had a point but, that clearly wasn't the case. I remember having a similar encounter with you in the fantastic four 2 forum where you basically did the same exact thing. I'm now convinced you were definitely trying to be a dick in both situations.

I don't ever remember even going to the Fantastic 4 forums. I don't care for Fantastic 4 enough to spend my time in the forums, except maybe to say once I see the film that I liked it or didn't, and leave it at that.

Which is why I don't understand why you spend time in the Wolverine forums if you don't have any interest in the film? I've never even gone into the Watchmen forums, because except for a simple interest in seeing a movie that looks entertaining, I have no interest in Watchmen and would add absolutely nothing to the conversation.

With the exception of your first review I never thought you were that angry about the film we got.

Even my first review was more disappointed over what we -didn't- get than what we did - No epic Cyclops trying to save Jean Grey, no long running internal struggle between Jean and The Phoenix, no Sentinels and no Gambit (both of which I felt fit perfectly into the storyline), and no Angel becoming a member of the X-Men.

Being open about your opinions maybe an example of security but, being intolerant is not one. People who feel secure about their opinions consistently act rational and show composure during debates. There was nothing even-tempered or rational about the way you responded to my criticisms of Kinberg's lies. What's really bizzare about your behavior is we weren't having a debate, nor were my criticisms directed at you or your opinion of X3. However, for some inexplicable reason you took it personally and since then your attitude towards me and other X3/Fox haters has been very negative.

Funny you mention "acting rational" when that's exactly the mentality that is BEYOND fanboyism - comparing Fox to corrupt fascist governments like you did is NOT acting rational.

However, I'm glad you brought this up because I also remember you calling this film and many other non X-Men comic book movies overated. Whatever standards you're using to evaluate the X-Men films seem to be different from the ones used to examine other CBM's. Someone could easily accuse you of having double standards in regards to these opinions.

Difference is my opinion is based upon what I get the most enjoyment from - not accepting certain flaws in one film and damning another for the same thing.

I call Spiderman and Batman Begins / The Dark Knight "over-rated" because I don't feel they are the "greatest movies of all time" that people make them out to be. I do not get that level of satisfaction out of them. The only thing I feel was worth getting excited about in the Batman movies was Ledger as The Joker. Everything else is just kinda whatever to me.

I -LIKE- the movies, don't get me wrong, but outside of Ledger there's just nothing in those movies that stands out as "OMG I HAVE TO WATCH THIS MOVIE!"

But fanboys are rational, right? So you all shouldn't have any problem with me stating that The Dark Knight is over-rated...

 

[Star]

You see, Tom Rothman was a rapist in his past life, so in his current form, he is instead raping movies.

He raped Daredvil.
He raped Fantastic Four.
He tried to rape X-Men, but that ***** was a fighter, so it took him a few tries before the rape was successful (X3).
He sat back and watched Street Fighter rape itself (sometimes he just likes to watch).
He is currently raping Dragonball.
He raped Deadpool in a WOLVERINE movie, which I like to call "Indirect Rape".

And now, thanks to the 'word a day' calendar that Rupert Murdoch got him for Christmas, he has discovered the meaning of the word "reboot". This has caused Rothman to consider restarting Daredevil and FF, in a move I like to call 'double rape', or in F4's case 'rape squared'.

I feel really disturbed reading this

 

[Batman713]

Nell2ThaIzzay alias for Tom Rothman?

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

Nell2ThaIzzay alias for Tom Rothman?

Sure whatever helps you sleep at night.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

i wont stand up for fox... I know movie studios all care about money period, but fox goes about it, i feel a different way. They put out quantity over quality. They pretty much know that as long as a movie has a fanbase, they will make money off of it, rather then treat such properties with respect. They'd rather invest little money into crap for a "safe bet" rather then invest money for something that actually gets critical praise, and rakes in viewers. I see how they don't want to take a risk, but to continue that mindset i find pretty stupid.

 

[Halcohol]

Whhhhhhhyyyyyyyyyyyy can't these arguments stay in the X forums........... aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhh I thought I had escaped them.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

Whhhhhhhyyyyyyyyyyyy can't these arguments stay in the X forums........... aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhh I thought I had escaped them.

maybe because it just doesn't deal with X-men?

 

[Theweepeople]

Nell2ThaIzzay alias for Tom Rothman?

Nell's definitely not Tom Rothman. He was a reasonable poster I used to have pleasant discussions with until after december of 2006.



Just be patient Nell. I decided to take a break from this forum over the weekend. I'll be responding to everything you stated soon.

 

[Theweepeople]

No, it's a warning for weary forum goers that what follows is a long winded opinion piece. Stop taking everything so seriously, not everything is some kind of knock against you.

Well, that's sublte and Halcohol's reaction suggests the warning didn't accomplish much.

Fanboys have dellusions of grandeur that everything they complain about actually makes a difference.

I never said that fanboy criticism would have a dramatic impact on the production process of every film. I just think your assertion that fanboys have little to no influence on the productions of films is wrong. The petition for the Superman Lives disaster and Lorenzo Dibonaventura's firing are examples. The false advertiseing campaigns of FF2 and X3 are more evidence the fanboy voice is significant.

Cyclops is being tossed in this film because the writer of the script is a comic fan, and the character is marketable, just like Gambit is.

You're definitely speculating. I haven't seen any evidence that the lead writer(David Benioff) is a comic fan. Anyone involved with the production of a CBM can call themselves a comic fan and make decisions that piss fans off. Brett Ratner, Simon Kinberg, and Zak Penn all called themselves huge fans and I seriously question this(Ratner calling the script flawless and stressing the importance of getting characters right. Kinberg and Penn's leaked script. Kingberg's answers to questions on thexverse.com)

The writer you're referring to is wolverine comic book writer Len Wein and he has never written the script for any theatrically released film. His role seems to be more suited for a consultant to David Benioff on this film so the unnecassary addition of Cyclops might not even be his idea.

Also, since when did Fox give comic book movie writers freedom to do whatever they want. Kinberg and Penn both complained that Fox scrutinized every writing idea they had for X3. Other writers who've worked on Fox sci-fi/comic book movies have complained about the same thing.

I wouldn't be surpised if Cyclop's inclusion in the story is because of Tom Rothman. I remember Brett Ratner admitting it was Rothman's decision for Rogue to take the cure. Brett also said that he and the writers hated the idea of killing off Xavier.

A movie full of Wraith, Maverick, and Silverfox won't really have much appeal to the mainstream audience, but throw in a Cyclops and a Gambit (the latter of which has been their "get out of jail free" in their pocket, so to speak, to cash in on free popularity) and all of a sudden there's a bit more marketability

I only partially agree. Mainstream audiences don't carefully follow the marketing of this movie so I doubt they know Scott Summers is in this film. Some may not even remember his name since the character didn't have much screen time in 2 of the previous films and experienced a horribly executed death in the last one. As for the average moviegoers who do remember Scott I can at least speculate that they may wonder if his inclusion in Wolverine is necessary.

I agree with you that Gambit is pretty marketable but, a mainstream audience will misunderstand his value to X-men franchise if the role turns out to be a cameo.

Speaking of dropoffs, Watchmen had a pretty horrible dropoff also, along with horrible reviews.

These are all things that you cite as proof of Fox's incompetence with X-Men: The Last Stand - I guess WB and Watchmen were incompetent also? Or do you only bring this stuff up when it suits your argument?[/quote]

If you want to talk about incompetence let's compare Fox and other studios. How often does Fox give directors the resources and freedom to make the best sci-fi/comic/action movie possible. I can only think of one instance in the past 10 years and it's happening right now(Avatar). Their most successful films(X1,X2,X3, FF,FF2,I-Robot of this genre) have all had production problems. It's no coincidence that they and Universal Studios are the only major film companies without a 300million domestic grossing film since the late 90s. Sony, WB, Paramount, and Disney have developed multiple films which broke this barrier in recent years:

WB-Lord of the Rings 1,2,3, The Dark Knight
Disney-Pirates 1,2,3
Paramount-Shrek The Third, Transformers, Indiana Jones 4
Sony-Spiderman 1,2,3

As for Watchmen, let's reverse roles. Would Fox have made a better film than the WB? They haven't had a commercially successful comic film in almost 3 years(X3). A critically successful one in nearly 6(X2). Fox bought the Watchmen property right in 1986 and were so incompetent at adapting it that 20 years passed before the opportunity to produce it became a reality. The Fox executives passed on the idea in 2005 because they perceived the only comic book with literary recognition as an "uninteligable piece of *****".


Fox did win the distribution right aspect of the lawsuit but, it's a minor victory in comparison to what they initially wanted. They threatened to keep the film from being released unless they received 50% of the cut on worldwide gross, sequels, DVD profits, and broadcasting deals. In the end Fox lost on all of these issues except the worldwide gross and sequels. The sequel aspect is irrelevant and won't happen. As for the worldwide gross Fox only gets 5 to 8.5%.

The dropoff is bad but, overall the reviews are mixed(64%fresh RT.com)but, better than X-Men 3(56%rotten). I personally know comic book fans/non comic ones who've seen the film with positive and negative opinions. The number one complaint I keep hearing is it was too violent. Unlike X-MEn 3 I didn't hear one complaint about run time, storyline, dialogue, or character development.


However in the grand scale of things exactly does Watchmen's failure have to do with what I was talking about? There are many reasons why Watchmen is underperforming. First of all it's a rated R comic with a ridiculously high budget. These types of films rarely make over 100million domestically.

Secondly it's a disturbingly violent comic to the extent that any film adaptation that closely resembled it would cater to a small demographic of people. It had a risky run time for an R-rated film. It also had a questionable release date and the12 issued series is so detailed the WB could have made two films out of the story. Releasing the film under all these conditions was a gamble just like 300 and the WB clearly missed the mark on producing this film by not making a movie that both fanboys and regular people could enjoy.


The biggest mistake Warner Brothers made was not properly factoring the perspective of the general audience in the equation. All R rated movies with graphic violence have high potential for financial struggle. The addition of violence against children and women usually makes failure inevitable. Most people can't stomache reading about these subjects. I'm a fan of the comic and I had an incredibly difficult time watching certain scenes. I'm in no rush to see the movie again for these reasons alone.


The second biggest mistake they made was in having delusional expectations about how well this film would do. They shouldn't have expected this film to make the same money 300 made. In the end Watchmen will be profitable for the WB eventually through DVD sales, worldwide gross, and tv airings. It is somewhat of a failed experiment but, the nice thing about the WB is they learn from their comic book mishaps and progress forward. The WB should shown more regard for all moviegoer perspectives and yet, you couldn't have picked a worst example of an underperforming comic book movie to use in your original assertion.


I also, never said I wanted a company to make a perfect comic book film adaptation because it's unnecessary and virtually impossible to do. What I want is for CBM adapations to capture the essence of the comics. This is something I felt Watchmen succeedied at despite it shortcomings. I can at least give the WB credit for being passionate at trying to adapt one of the most complex comic book storylines. When was the last time Fox invested the proper time and energy into any movie besides Cameron's Avatar?



You definitely, missed my point about why I think Cyclops is in the movie. I'm convinced Fox executives believe some of X3's boxoffice underperformance is attributed to the ticked off die hard comic fans. The movie could have easily made another 30 million more through repeated fanboy viewership if they weren't weary to see some their favorite characters get screwed over more than once.


I seriously don't see Scott Summer's inclusion in this storyline as anything more than a publicity stunt to draw in the fanboys for some more cash. I could be wrong but, I think his role could be a cameo that muddles up the way this storyline connects to the previous ones. Unless there's a good explanation as to why he won't remember Wolverine in X1 or the history he had with Stryker before meeting professor X(I doubt Xavier would try to help Stryker after Scott's revelation about him.) this part of the story could be very messy.

The policies of a business and the methods they use to market and creatre their products is a lot different than revolting against a corrupt government.

'
No kidding. You completely missed my point.

THIS is the exact fanboy sensationalism that irritates me. Somehow Fox's business practices OF THEIR OWN BUSINESS is comparable to corrupt dictatorship governments.

Another misinterpretation. I was simply stressing the idea that it's wrong to trivialize what citizens are capable of accomplishing. Fox's business practices are not comparable to an evil dictatorship but, they are still corrupt to some degree.

 

[Theweepeople]

Fox is the only one at loss if their business practices stink. If they suck, and nobody buys their product, Fox will be the one going out of business, and Rothman will lose his job.

What about the moviegoers who feel cheated after seeing watered down falsely marketed worthless films? Are these people supposed to feel okay with wasting money?

To this point, the general audience seems to be satisfied enough with their products since they still remain in business as one of the biggest studios in Hollywood.

Last years numbers suggested otherwise because no studio has a year that horrendous from only low fanboy viewership. Fox was the only major studio with two films to break the 100million domestic barrier while all of the other 5 major studios had at least double the amount(Two tripled the amount).

The man(Peter Chernin(Murdoch's #1 guy)) directly responsible for not holding Rothman accountable for his screwups recently left Fox after his contract wasn't renewed for obvious reasons. Since Rothman is now directly reporting to Murdoch his recent promotion suggests that Rupert will be examining his every move. One of the more recent rumours I've heard is Rothman's promotion may prevent him from directly impacting the production of fox's franchise films. So there's plenty of evidence that Fox has made these changes to improve the relationship with their customers.

Your also, not understanding the potential factor idea that I addressed last time. I don't expect Fox to go out of business or much less lose all their clout as a major studio. I expect them to continue underperforming if they don't change some of their business strategies.

Fanboy satisfaction and good word of mouth surely hasn't helped Watchmen, as it's been plagued by dropoffs just about as big as X-Men: The Last Stand and horrendous reviews across the board outside of comic book fanboys.

I already covered this and word of mouth is not universally good among fanboys. Half of the AICN main reviewers didn't like it. I've read the 12 issued comic, seen the movie, and state as a fact that there's plenty of stuff that wasn't adapted while other stuff was changed. Night Owl 1 had very limited screen time. Bernie, Benard, and Captain Metropolis had zero dialogue. No mention of the Tale of the Black Frieghter and no scenes of Rorshack at Happy Harry's bar. Adrian Veidt's plan was a bit different. Two of Rorshack's confrontations with criminals outside and inside prison was different. The movie also had a ton of unnecessary graphic violence not shown in the comic book.

The 76% fresh rating on rotten tomatoes is much lower than what I expected for the fanboy perspective. The overall 64% fresh rating proves the reviews aren't horrendous outside the fanboy opinion. The minor critics gave it decent reviews. What you're referring to are the mainstream critic rating(43% rotten). This system is usually always low because the main critics think most comics lack sophistication while others have an agenda against directors. These same critics who bashed Synder's 300 for being historically inaccurate are the same ones who praise movies like the Hurricane which had plenty of errors.

Just to set the record straight I have never had faith in mainstream critics. I lost all faith in them since the early 90s. I'm more interested in the reviews of lesser known critics and fanboy ones.

Obviously didn't have much impact since the movie was still one of the top grossing films of the year, broke records, and hit a home run with DVD sales.

That's one perspective. Another one is X3 could have been the top grossing film of the year, avioded a colossal second weekend dropoff, and made considerable more money with DVD sales from people like me had the film not been rushed. I'm still convinced the fanboys had an impact.

And I feel no shame in admitting that I don't allow a MOVIE to have such a huge impact on my life that I regard the studio behind said movie as "evil", and "corrupt", and compare them to the Hussein's, Hitler's, and Castro's of the world.

You definitely were impacted by X3. The movie is polarizing. The initial reviews on this website were polarizing and reactions to opinions have been the same. You are obsessed with defending X3 and are incapable of ignoring the X3 haters any longer. You wouldn't have posted in this thread if you weren't.

Also, I have never once called Fox, Tom Rothman, Jim Gianopulos, and Rupert Murdoch evil. I didn't compare them to dictators either. However, they are corrupt.

It is definitely within good business tactics to satisfy your customer base and give them what they want.

If customer satisfaction is a good business tactic then the decision to devalue this idea can be regarded as bad one or at very least very questionable. Either way not following good business tactics suggest Fox has some degree of moral lapse in regards to the consumer viewpoint.

The difference is, it is still Fox's decision to run their business as they see fit, and if they choose to pinch pennies at every corner then that is their porogative.

I never said they didn't have the right.

They still haven't flopped at the box office with their comic movies tho. Their comic book movies have all provided a profit to them. In the end, Fox doesn't care how they get it, as long as they do get it.

That's relative. From Hell, Elektra, and LXG were all huge boxoffice disappointments. Two of these were tentpole films for franchises. AVP1/AVP2(The original movies influenced the comics. The comics influenced the video games and AVP films which are comic film adaptations to some extent), Daredevil, Fanastic Four 2, and X3 all had mediocre domestic profit percentages. Right before X3 was released both Rothman and Hugh Jackman said Fox would consider making more sequels if X3 made fantastic money.


Fox eventually made a profit from all of these films. But, their decision to abruptly end some of these franchises, make unnecessary sequels, consider unnecessary sequels(Silver Surfer), decrease the budget of a sequel(AVP2), and make a spinoff with an overexposed comic character suggests these films aren't as profitable as you're suggesting.

Sure, but they still make a profit

Not always. The owners of the Seattle Sonics and Charlotte Hornets did a lousy job of running their franchises. The forced depature of both franchises from their original cities shows that maximizing customer satisfication can be optimal to staying in business.

, and are at rights to run their team as they see fit.

Sure. It still doesn't exclude them from being criticized for having questionable motives and business practices.

I am a San Francisco Giants fan, I know all about team ownerships who care only about the bottom line, and not the product on the field. It frustrates me watching the team penny pinch, instead of trying to produce a quality product.

Yes, there are owners like this but, I doubt that most of them are running a highly successful business with these tactics. It's very difficult to run an nba franchise this way. Teams like Memphis, New York, Pacers, Washington, Sacramento, and LA Clippers are only some of the teams that have been losing money as a result of mismangement.

I may disagree with their tactics, but I am not sitting her claiming I am being slighted by the management.

If it bothers me that much, I can choose to not buy Giants tickets and merchandise.

Good for you. I'm a Laker fan and if the management consistently made bad decisions that kept the team at the bottom I would do all of these things because I know that's all Laker fans need to do to get results. It worked in the early to mid 90s when the team was mediocre. It worked just a few years ago and at some time in the future it may work again.

But what I don't do is run around claiming that they "owe" me something, and that they are a horribly corrupt organization that the fans should rise up and revolt against.

It's called keeping things in perspective. Something fanboys don't tend to do.

I addressed all of this in previous posts. You continue to blow things out of proportion.

Probably not, because I don't think that Daredevil, Fantastic 4, or Planet of the Apes are really in high demand.

Of course they're not in high demand because Fox screwed them up so badly the first time. The decision to reboot these franchises instead of continuing them shows some sense of objectivity in regards to perpeceiving what fans want. It also, seems like an act out of desperation to generate money in a market that has become increasingly franchise oriented.

 

[Theweepeople]

There is nothing in the least bit "morally corrupt" about Fox's business tactics. And it is THIS mentality that I am talking about.

In one of my last replies you said something to the effect of "concern for customer satisfaction is a good business practice." So therefore, any company(Fox) showing little regard for this idea has bad or at least very questionable motives.

Fanboys don't know how to keep things in perspective.

Sounds like something an elitist snob would say. I don't see how having an obsessive desire to continually defend X3, along with other crappy Fox films, and ridicule fanboys is a good example of having perspective.

As someone who has been in business for my entire working career myself, I have also learned the TRUTH that no, the customer is NOT always right.

After having over a decade of business experience of course I know the customer isn't always right. This is merely a catch phrase employers use in stressing the importance of valuing customer satisfaction to their subordinates. It's an important slogan that all companies know about and Fox has corrupted it. Their catch phrase is "make the customer think he/she is always right with false advertisements."

Then let them. That's capitalism for you. Sink or swim. If Fox fails, that's on them. And they will suffer for it. But capitalism is all about being able to fail, which is why all this bail out stuff is so controversial.

What do you think I've been doing for the past 3 years? I haven't spent theater money on a 20th century Fox film since X3. I will continue this habit until Fox advertises something that truly looks good and inspiring. I will also, express my distate for awful looking Fox films whenever and wherever I please.

ALL businesses are only concerned with profit, it's just a matter of how they go about getting that profit.

You're right. Some businesses are concerned with profit and the customer's wishes while the other morally corrupt ones(Fox) try to take advantage of customers.

I wouldn't go that far. I've seen plenty of films that are marketed differently than what the movie actually is. It's called advertising.

It's called false advertising which is a form of lieing and an example of moral corruption. In my industry falsely advertising products leads to lawsuits, firings, and jail time. I understand the industry I'm a part of sells products that have a greater impact on this society than hollywood's but, lieing is wrong in every business sector.


I'm, not sure what films you're talking about that were falsely advertised to the extent of X3. Before, I borrowed X3 from a friend I had never seen a DVD with that many deleted scenes, tv spots(11), and different takes on a how a scene was filmed.


It's also interesting that I enjoyed the trailers of other Fox films more than the films themselves(Daredevil, FF, FF2, LXG, AVP1, Elektra). Daredevil and Elektra's trailers were action packed and both films movie bored me. FF's was adveritsed as this great action yet the film barely has any until the very end. AVP1 was marketed as being scary and having great Alien vs. predator fights. Nothing about that film was suspenseful and the only action sequence I liked was the final one. FF2 was marketed as having more depth than it's predecessor yet there were quite a few silly cringeworthy moments(Mr. Fantastic dancing).

Sure, but just like any other business out there, if I don't like their product, I simply won't buy it, and that's where it ends. I don't hold some kind of grudge and feel personally slighted because the company made a product I did not enjoy.

That's nice. That is your perogative and you're still blowing my perspective out of proportions. I'm not consumed with hate against Fox for any decisions they make with property rights I previously enjoyed. My expectations of Fox have been so low for the last 3 years that it's impossible for them to disappointment me. Every screwup they made after X3 was expected.

I won't be giving up my reasonable bias against Fox even if you by some miracle manage to give up your contempt for those who dislike fox. It also, seems hypocritical of you to lecture people on having grudges when you show resentment towards people you disagree with.

No, you're just arguing semantic. I said "might" because I have not personally researched this stuff, because I personally don't care. I don't go off of 3rd party information blindly. So for the sake of argument, I agree with you that some directors don't want to for Fox, but I'm not going to state something absolutely when I have no personal knowledge of it.

In some sense all informational leaks(Set pictures, reviews, interviews) are 3rd party information before a film is released. All of us are susceptible to being influenced by this stuff.

No, I have an agenda against fanboys who have no perspective,

You're obsessively biased perspective isn't any more balanced.

and feel it as a personal assault against them when a movie studio releases a film that they don't like and resort to claims of corruption and evil tactics.

See above response and an earlier one that addresses your misguided perception of me calling Fox evil. Though they are corrupt.

"Failing" is a matter of personal opinion. I have zero problem what so ever with Fox's comic book films. The X-Men films are pretty much everything I could have ever wanted to see as a lifetime X-Men fan. The Fantastic 4 movies are good, fun, engaging entertainment. As a fan of the Hitman games, I was overall satisfied with the movie (not saying I didn't have complaints, of course). The first AvP I thought was pretty well made for it's genre and type of movie (the only movie of the 2 franchises that I thought was anything close to good was Alien - the rest of the Alien films and both Predator movies I thought sucked pretty bad). Shoot, I even own Daredevil.

I'd say that Fox's catalog of comic book movies is a lot better than a lot of the garbage that's out there comic-book film wise. I.E. Blade 2, Blade: Trinity, Hellboy, Catwoman......

I thought all the films you mentioned are crapfests with the exception of X1 and X2. I have found enjoyment in plenty of other comic book movies not made by Fox:

Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, V for Vendetta, 300, Watchmen, Spider-man 1,2,3(3 was very entertaining stupidity), Hellboy 2, Blade, Road to Perdition, Iron Man, The incredible Hulk, The Hulk, Sin city, and Men in Black. Even Men in Black II and Constantine had their moments.

The fanboys sure don't.

You're not making a strong case for yourself either with this snobbish obsessive nature you keep showing in this thread towards people who disagree with you.

If my opinions weren't buried in a wall of text, and were read by more than just you, there is NO WAY IN HELL that I would get away with saying that I think the X-Men films are better than Batman Begins / The Dark Knight, or that Del Toro is an awful director. There's no way in hell I'd get away with saying that 300 wasn't really that great of a movie.

I've never referred to you or any other fanboys as being idiots, shallow, or having misguided opinions in regards to something was unable to enjoy. I don't have issues with anyone calling a movie I love overated. I just found it interesting that you seemed to be pretty adament about calling non X-Men comic films that are almost universally loved by critics and fanboys overated.

Also, there's no need to play the victim mentality. There was far more hate directed against the opinions of the X3 haters than lovers during the summer of 2006 but, I never complained to the mods. I just laugh at what happened and recognize that Horrorfan, Carp Man, Advanced Dark, Blind Fury, and Antarish were all eventually banned for bad behavior.

Or, there could also be the fact that what some people call "lowered expectations" is actually going into the movie with your mind already made up that the movie is going to suck.

Which is partially the case with my first viewing of X-Men: The Last Stand. I was so embittered with the changes to the source material the first time around that I was more caught up in those than I was actually enjoying the movie for what it was.

Which is the case with a lot of fanboys - they make their mind up ahead of time, and justify a negative attitude and not willing to enjoy it regardless with "lowered expectations".

This is arrogant. Who gave you the authority to dictate the expectations of customer satifaction for a product? The potential of the franchise increased after X1. X2 satisfied the majority so it was reasonable to have higher expectations for the sequel. The sequel failed because it didn't meet peoples expectations or come close reaching it's full potential.

There's certaintly nothing wrong with having lower expectations for a film. Just don't expect the majority of people to compromise their expectations simply because your perspective appears to be more rational. I'm a realist by nature but, I'm also very optimistic. There were plenty of reasons to believe X3 would end up being an epic film satifying the largest demographic of people now and ages to come.

 

[Theweepeople]

What you're saying doesn't even make sense.

Sure, no 2 movies are the same, but a movie that is a DIRECT SEQUEL to another does in fact have a lot of connection to the film previous - therefore allowing certain flaws in one film but not another is in fact a double standard.

Actually, it makes perfect sense if you factor the potential standard into the equation. All animate, inanimate, and systems of reason have parameters that change of over time. Whenever one parameter(potential) adjusts the other ones will experience modification and the entire system does change.

A real life example of this would be If I had two sons(one with a learning disability) I wouldn't initially expect the same academic results from both. However, if the slower son gets the treatment he needs and catches up intelectually with children his age then the standard I use to evaluate his potential of capability has indeed changed for obvious reasons. Therefore, the system of reasoning has changed.

This system of reasoning works in evaluating movies. My expectations of Fox's X1 were very low because I had not seen a good comic book film in 3 years. Despite, the numerous flaws the movie was better than expected. It quickly became obvious that these comic films could be entertaining again.

Therefore, my expectations for X2 grew and I witnessed another great comic film(Spider-man) before the summer of 2003. X2 ended up being my favorite comic book movie of it's time(until spidey 2). The dialogue, effects(with the exception of some Deathstrike vs Wolverine wirework), acting, storyline, runtime, and action were all better in X2. For these reasons it was not unreasonable for comic fans to expect less flaws in X3 then the previous films.

I even stated in that post you're trying to get me on that there is NOTHING wrong with conversation about the film, and that I still enjoy it.

Of course conversation about X3 is okay but, you were clearly trying to rile up another unnecessary debate with BMM.

But the heated conversation about "THEY GOT THIS WRONG!!! OMG'ZZZZ!!!11" is pointless.

I've never done this to this extent in any thread. When informational leaks take place I usually post my comment and leave for except when people like you take my words out of context. There are times when I'll come back and post similar messages but, not the same exact message in every thread.

Expressing disappointments or satisfactions, and discussing them is fine, and I even stated that in my post.

I'm certaintly not getting this impression from you lately. More along the lines of expressing disappointments is fine as long as the opinions don't bother you.

I never have started a thread on how many times I've seen X-Men: The Last Stand or any other X-Men film. Have I mentioned it? Absolutely.

Let me refresh your memory.

http://forums.superherohype.com/forumdisplay.php?f=466 and http://forums.superherohype.com/forumdisplay.php?f=319&order=desc&page=2

Notice the "Been watching all 3 movies" and "the Got done watching X2" threads. Both titles have content pertaining to the number of times you've seen X3. You didn't need to start either of these two threads. You could have just added the initial commentaries to existing ones.

Yes I do, and I still stand by what I said. You have made it quite clear time and time again that you will allow reviews and runtimes to determine your interest in a film, instead of relying on your own interest in the film.

Never once have I relied on a review for my interest of a film. I can form my own opinion on whether or not I am interested in a film by what I see from commercials and trailers. If I think a movie looks interesting, I will watch it, and no amount of bad reviews will stop me, and if I think a movie looks like crap, no amount of praise will change my opinion on it.

I haven't changed my opinion either. I explained that the film was never on my must see list and that I wasn't expecting the reviews or run time to change my opinion. I don't see how that makes me inept at making decisions for myself. Do you not remember how the conversation continued?
http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=301958&page=86

Like I said earlier you intentionally ignored the knowledge I had of Wolverine's production history and Fox's history with these types of films. Then you implied that my decision to see movies is merely governed by reviews and run times. You've obviously had this obsessive bias against me for a while. You waited for an opportunity to try and make me look stupid while ignoring the opinions of others with similar viewpoints. I observe the Wolverine forum when I'm not posting there and I haven't seen you criticize anyone for being concerned with Lauren Donner's comments on Wolverine's run time.

Furthermore, if what you were saying is true than I wouldn't have seen X3, I AM Legend, Ghost Rider, Transformers, and I-Robot
in the theaters. All of those films had mixed reviewers. The only one with a run time over 2 hours was Transformers. The enjoyment I got out of I-Robot, Transfomers, and I am Legend aren't influenced by critic reviews so I certaintly don't need any advice from you on how I form my opinions.

The last time my expectations for a film were manipulated by reviews was in 1989. I was 13, naive, and couldn't help believing all the hype about Batman. I still think it's a decent movie but, the original Batman did not meet my expectations. After that my primary motivation for reading reviews was for entertainment value and confirmation of spoiler information. I personally don't give a rat's ass about how different my opinions are from Roger Ebert, Richard Roeper, Harry Knolwes, or any other person that writes a review.

I don't ever remember even going to the Fantastic 4 forums.

Well, I would refresh your memory again with another link if the forum hadn't been closed.

I don't care for Fantastic 4 enough to spend my time in the forums, except maybe to say once I see the film that I liked it or didn't, and leave it at that.

Which is why I don't understand why you spend time in the Wolverine forums if you don't have any interest in the film? I've never even gone into the Watchmen forums, because except for a simple interest in seeing a movie that looks entertaining, I have no interest in Watchmen and would add absolutely nothing to the conversation.

That's some serious exaggeration. The Wolverine forum had been around for a few years before I made some of my first couple of posts in late July and early August of 2008. After seeing the comic-con trailer I started to have faith that this movie might be good. Then a few weeks later the news of Rothman clashing with Gavin came out and my faith nearly, dissipated. Since then I haven't been this obsessive poster who posts the same messages every day in every thread. I usually comment whenever new information is leaked and I move on unless someone attacks my position.

What keeps me coming back is a morbid sense of curiosity and shred of hope the movie could turn out fine. I've been an X-Men and Wolverine fan since the early 90s so it's natural to desire stating my opinion on everything concerning these characters.

Even my first review was more disappointed over what we -didn't- get than what we did - No epic Cyclops trying to save Jean Grey, no long running internal struggle between Jean and The Phoenix, no Sentinels and no Gambit (both of which I felt fit perfectly into the storyline), and no Angel becoming a member of the X-Men.

Agreed.

Funny you mention "acting rational" when that's exactly the mentality that is BEYOND fanboyism - comparing Fox to corrupt fascist governments like you did is NOT acting rational.

You responded exactly the way I predicted. Pointing to what you mistakenly perceived as bad behavior doesn't make yours any less visible or relevant. Also, for the last time I've never compared Fox to fascist goverments.

Difference is my opinion is based upon what I get the most enjoyment from - not accepting certain flaws in one film and damning another for the same thing.

I already addressed this in an early post. There is no double standard if there's a significant fluctation in the potential factor that influences peoples expectations.

I call Spiderman and Batman Begins / The Dark Knight "over-rated" because I don't feel they are the "greatest movies of all time" that people make them out to be.

Isn't this hypocritical? You mistakenly criticized me for being manipulated by reviews yet, you clearly are being influenced in this way if you believed all the hype. I certaintly didn't. Who has perspective now?

I do not get that level of satisfaction out of them. The only thing I feel was worth getting excited about in the Batman movies was Ledger as The Joker. Everything else is just kinda whatever to me.

I -LIKE- the movies, don't get me wrong, but outside of Ledger there's just nothing in those movies that stands out as "OMG I HAVE TO WATCH THIS MOVIE!"

What I don't understand is if you like the movies weren't your expectations met? If your expectations were met isn't there little reason to call the films overated?

What I do understand is there are two factors(Expectations and Reviews) that typically influence people to cast the overated judgement after seeing a film. Reviews and expectations. Based on what I've read I can only assume your perspective is the result of expectations not being met
or you allowing an overhyped review to manipulate your interests.

But fanboys are rational, right?So you all shouldn't have any problem with me stating that The Dark Knight is over-rated...

Overall, I don't have a problem. Though I still think the system you use in formulating the overated perception seems contradictory to things you've criticized other fanboys of being influenced by.

I also, can't speak for the opinions of all fanboys. Some are completely irrational. The ones who wanted Juggernaut's origin from the uncanny X-MEn comics is an example. The ones who hate Tom Rothman and Fox are others. I don't condone any hate towards anyone. However, I'm not going to defend a company with executives quoted as saying "***** the fans. We already have their money" and calling the only comic with literary recogntion "an unintelligible piece of *****".



Finally, I think your anger is misplaced. People who follow your example are usually sad the majority disagree with them and are afraid of compromising their opinions. The people you should be angry at are Fox for making a movie that displeased a significant percentage of fanboys and the general audience.

I will read your next response but, I won't respond to any more of your comments on these issues. I think it's unhealthy for both of us to continue this discussion. It's time to agree to disagree and move on.

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

I'm only going to respond to one thing here - which is to clear up my view about the Batman films, saying that if I liked it, weren't my expectations met?

The answer is no, my expectations weren't met.

I won't sit here and claim to be an expert of any kind on the Batman character, but I really do like the idea of the Batman character. I think he's pretty badass.

I was hoping for a lot more out of the Nolan films. The reason why my expectations weren't met, is because I have a particular perception of what Batman is, who Bruce Wayne is, and the Nolan films did not capture that perception.

To make it clear - I do not like the "Bam! POW!" Batman of the 60's. I do not like Burton's vision of Batman, and I do not like Shumacher's vision of Batman.

Nolan's vision of Batman is a lot closer to what I like about Batman than those others, but in my opinion, went too far in the other direction.

To me, Batman DOES have some cheese, and some camp, but not a LOT of it. The Burton / Shumacher series of films was nothing but camp. I see Batman as a rather dark story.

The Nolan films were nothing but dark, and I think that they went too dark.

I see Batman really as a balance between Burton and Nolan, with more emphasis on Nolan. I guess the best example I can give is the Batman cartoons of the 90's. I felt that was a rather good blend of a comic book setting, with a dark feel.

So sure, I like the Nolan films, I own them, and franchise wise, it's probably my 3rd favorite comic book franchise (behind X-Men and Spiderman - individual films I enjoy Blade - only the first one as I feel that Del Toro completely raped an amazing movie and ruined the series, and Punisher - 2004 - haven't seen the Ray Stevenson one yet, I enjoy these individual films better than Batman Begins / The Dark Knight, but as a franchise, the Batman series is better), but neither film lived up to my expectations for Batman. Honestly, when I'm watching these films, I don't feel like I'm watching a Batman movie.

That is why I call the movies over-rated. As far as Spiderman goes, the reason why I call it over-rated is because, as enjoyable as the movies are, I just don't see any kind of meaningful depth to the Spiderman mythos. It's more of a kid friendly story (tho the movies do have some adult moments), and it's a kid with super powers who fights against super powered criminals.

I think the lore for Spiderman is inherently inferior to the lores of X-Men and Batman specifically, as well as other comics that I'm not as familiar with, but know have depth to them (I.E. Watchmen. I'm not a fan of the Watchmen or anything - I enjoyed the movie - I'd say it's tons deeper than Spiderman).

That's why I feel it's overrated. I see the movies as -really well done- fun, nothing more. But I just don't feel any true substance to it, which is why I don't feel it's the best comic book movie ever. I feel that just as far as fiction goes, it's lacking.

Which adds to why I'm so disappointed in the Nolan Batman films - they couldn't even give me the enjoyment, from a character that I like, to match and exceed the levels of satisfaction I got from Spiderman.

That's why I feel those franchises are both over rated. That's why I like X-Men so much, from comics to the movies, because I feel there is actual true depth to the stories. To me, the X-Men isn't about a bunch of superheroes in bright costumes with fancy powers, it's about a struggle for acceptance and equality, and the lengths that bigotry can go to destroy those it deems as different. It's a story of people who share these relationships and bonds with each other.

I don't doubt that the X-Men films could have been better (my favorite fictional lore of all time couldn't even provide my favorite movies of all time - which ends up being Lord of the Rings), BUT the essence of what I truly feel such an emotional attatchment to with X-Men was captured on the screen by about 90% throughout the main trilogy (and seemingly the entire quadrilogy now that X-Men Origins: Wolverine is coming out, and looks to impress).

That's why I hold the X-Men films to such a higher standard than these other films, why I appreciate them so much and call the other films over rated. I feel that lore wise, the X-Men already has so much more to offer than these other lores, which is why I am a fan of the X-Men, and not Fantastic 4, or Hulk, or Batman, or Superman, or Spiderman, or Daredevil, or Watchmen, or 300, or whatever. I LIKE a lot of that stuff, but I feel an attatchment to X-Men because I feel there's more there.

These other film franchises I feel are inherently limited because I don't feel that their source material has as much to offer. These films come out, and DON'T offer as much to me, and I don't find the same levels of satisfaction from them.

Obviously, fans of Spiderman, fans of Batman, they are going to have the same types of opinions for their favorites, and feel that X-Men doesn't have as much to offer. And in their opinion, they can call the X-Men films overrated until they are blue in the face. And that's fine.

But I will continue to call Spiderman and Batman overrated, because the level of praises that they receive as the greatest comic book films ever are not the levels of enjoyment that I get out of these films.

Perhaps you could say that Spiderman met and exceeded my expectations, because I don't particularly care for the characters but I think the movies are pretty damned good, but no, Batman didn't meet my expectations and it wasn't as good as I felt it should be.

You may disagree with my mindset regarding these films, but perhaps now you can finally understand why I call those films overrated.

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

As for the rest of the stuff, I will just sum it up with this:

It costs $10 to go see a movie in the theaters, or $5 to rent a movie. That's what you're out.

Most products out there provide some kind of function or service. Cars, computers, clothes, sporting good, appliances - those are just some quick ones off of the top of my head. Their purpose and function can be measured, and therefore are judged by set quality standards. Most of them are standards set for functionality, or for safety.

Movies are judged subjectively. You either like the story and it's execution, or you don't. Subjectivity cannot be measured. There are certain standards that people tend to want to adhere to, but those standards are in no way the be all end all. It's all subjective.

When it comes to movies, these movie studios own the rights to these properties. Therefore, these properties become -their's-, and as such they can do as they please with it. Sure, it sucks for us fans to see our favorite fictions butchered (I do still have issues with many decisions in X2 and X-Men: The Last Stand), but it's Fox's property to do as they wish. If I really hate it that much, I still have the cartoons and comics that I love so much.

This fanboy mentality is no different than people like Glenn Beck, or Michael Savage, or Rush Limbaugh. It's not facts and objectivity, it's emotion and sensationalism. All this talk of movie studios being "corrupt" or "morally wrong" is the equivelent of Ann Coulter running around talking about how Obama's policies are socialist and sending us down the road to Communism. There's no rational or logical thinking behind it, it's simply emotion and sensationalism to exaggerate a point, as well as make it impossible to argue against because you're arguing against a person, not a point. The argument is set out that anyone who disagrees is wrong, and just simply doesn't know what they are talking about or are left wing communists themselves (in the case of Fox, Fox "defenders" are always accused of being Fox plants - it's been done to me in this very thread. It makes it impossible to argue against the hate, because it always becomes a personal attack that "you must work for Fox").

There's a difference between saying "I disagree with President Obama's stimulus package because....." and "Obama's stimulus package is left wing socialism that is destroying the fundamentals of America and leading us down the road to Communism."

That is the difference between "I do not like X-Men: The Last Stand", and "Fox killed Cyclops to punish James Marsden for doing Superman Returns with Bryan Singer" or "Fox rushed X-Men: The Last Stand so they could beat Bryan Singer to theatres."

There's no rational thinking behind it (in actuality, Fox is a business, X-Men: The Last Stand was an investment, and continually pushing back a release date is rather unprofessional, and would cost Fox even more money, losing them money on their investment, as the Memorial Day weekend that it was released is a PRIME spot for a summer blockbuster). It also makes it impossible to argue against, because you're just called out as a "Fox plant" if you argue otherwise.

Therein lies my problem. I have no problem with a dislike of X-Men: The Last Stand, or even a problem with Fox as a studio, what I do have a problem is the sense of entitlement from fans, and the irrational sensationalism instead of objective, logical thinking.

With that, I am also done with this argument, as it's going nowhere. While I don't believe that you're one of the rabid fanboys that's just out to stir up trouble, nor do I believe that you get a kick out of just mindlessly bashing a film like I've seen some people do on here, the fact is I -don't- agree with the way you judge movies, as I've witnessed from your expression of your view on X-Men: The Last Stand. My problem isn't that you didn't like the movie, it's your reasoning for not liking the movie (Golden Gate Bridge wasn't long enough to reach the mainland to Alcatraz, Magneto's strategy, plastic cure darts, etc...) So as you stated, it's probably about time for us to just agree to disagree.

(And for the record - I don't have any problem with you expressing your displeasures with the development of X-Men Origins: Wolverine. I did get a little annoyed with seeing how you wouldn't be seeing the film in every thread you made, BUT I don't think you are wrong in any way by expressing dissatisfaction with what you've seen thus far).

 

[Doctor Jones]

By God, man.

How long were your essays in school?

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

By God, man.

How long were your essays in school?

About a third as long as my posts on X-Men: The Last Stand

 

[Addendum]

You also forgot that if someone sits watches an entire movie and they think it sucks, the movie theater doesn't give you the money back