Fox vs. Sony - who is worse?

Who is worse?

  • Fox

  • Sony

  • They're both equal


Results are only viewable after voting.
I try to separate my comic fan from film fan when I watch a movie...but it's not always easy. For example, I really, really did not like Spider-man 2 when it came out. Because as a Spider-man film, I thought (and still think) it failed some of my favorite characters in terms of how they were portrayed. MJ was horrible, Doc Ock has never been a good man at heart controlled by evil tentacles, and Spider-man was never given a personality.

But as a film, I've come to recognize that it is indeed a very well crafted piece of cinema. The effects still hold up, it has solid writing, and the action is great.

But to me, it's still one of my most disappointing moments in a theater, because I had very high hopes for that film, and it failed to meet all of them.

I agree with this. But for me, it was the opposite, loved the movie in the theater, still do. But those character flaws grind my gears more now than it did 10 years ago. It served the story they were telling, but I think somewhere out there, hopefully the group Marvel and Sony have commissioned for the next installment can hit those marks for an accurate portrayal and deliver a great film in the process.

We have some good and at least one great Spider-Man movies, but I have always felt that the best is yet to come, and it has been a long wait!

The X-Men are in the same boat as far as I'm concerned, some great films, but the best has yet to be delivered. Unfortunately, unlike Sony, I don't see any big changes in the way they adapt Marvel's mutants coming any time soon.
 
I've always been interested in this. Hype and disappointment vs actual quality are fascinating (especially on the hype) when it comes to superhero films.

Over the nearly 10 years I've been on here, I've seen people viciously rip into movies that, while not good, were clearly not as bad as some people made them out to be. You had people claiming X3 and SM3 were some of the worst movies ever made. Not just Superhero movies, movies in general, which is a gross exaggeration. Now, they're not good, but both those movies aren't even as bad as some of the worst superhero films out there, let alone worst films.

But both of those films had MASSIVE hype. Especially SM3. To this day, the only film I've seen that has outdone SM3 in hype was TDK. So when the films came out lackluster, people went crazy.

I try to separate my comic fan from film fan when I watch a movie...but it's not always easy. For example, I really, really did not like Spider-man 2 when it came out. Because as a Spider-man film, I thought (and still think) it failed some of my favorite characters in terms of how they were portrayed. MJ was horrible, Doc Ock has never been a good man at heart controlled by evil tentacles, and Spider-man was never given a personality.

But as a film, I've come to recognize that it is indeed a very well crafted piece of cinema. The effects still hold up, it has solid writing, and the action is great.

But to me, it's still one of my most disappointing moments in a theater, because I had very high hopes for that film, and it failed to meet all of them.

Agreed on many points. I do think Spider-Man 3 is better than the fan community's opinion makes it out to be...X-Men: The Last Stand, not so much. Even so, I think there is a difference between hype and reality that shouldn't hurt movies necessarily.

For me though, something like Iron Man 2 should be great because the first film is great and all the winning ingredients are there. When it fails to be something special or even memorable because of studio interference and a lack of ambition, it seems just more wasteful to me. It's weird.

That's why you really have to read (or watch) the reviews to see how a critic really feels. One 3/5 isn't necessarily the same as another.

Yep. The written words are always more telling than how many stars something gets.
 
Wouldn't Spider-Man 3 and Iron Man 2 be in the same boat? Same crew returning, but majority agrees they do not match up to their predecessors. Whether or not we agree with that majority is besides the point, I just fail to see how, going off what you said about hype and reality, in your book SM3 gets a pass but IM2 is a waste. SM3 was assuredly the more hyped and anticipated of the two.
 
Spider-Man 3 should have been John Jameson as Venom. He would have plenty of ammunition to hate Peter because he stole MJ from him. I would have made the Symbiote have a voice that only Peter would have heard, and the constant heated battles which would culminate in the bell tower, having the Symbiote hate Peter and Spider-Man. Then for Jameson to find it.

Iron Man 2. The 2 issues that bothered me was his father creating an element that coincidentally fixed his core reactor. The other was anti-climatic fight with Whiplash at the end.
 
I'm not going to defend Iron Man 2 all that vehemently, it's easily one of the weakest MCU movies, but it's definitely a step above Spider-man 3.
 
Disney is the worst.

resized_diagnostic-house-meme-generator-i-have-diagnosed-you-with-balls-of-steel-200b62.jpg

Spider-Man 3 should have been John Jameson as Venom. He would have plenty of ammunition to hate Peter because he stole MJ from him. I would have made the Symbiote have a voice that only Peter would have heard, and the constant heated battles which would culminate in the bell tower, having the Symbiote hate Peter and Spider-Man. Then for Jameson to find it.

That's a good idea. Vehom had no impact because Brock hated Peter far too easily. He got pissed at Peter for taking out his "girlfriend" whom he only had one date with and who got him fired for bringing to light his own forgery.
Peter didn't do anything to Brock that Brock didn't do to himself first. And while im not religious I found it so ridiculous that a devout Christian would ask God to kill a person for him, especially for such little things.

Iron Man 2. The 2 issues that bothered me was his father creating an element that coincidentally fixed his core reactor. The other was anti-climatic fight with Whiplash at the end.

The shoehorning of Black Widow was another, for me. The ending of Iron Man 3 retroactively made the element plot worse because as it turned out he didn't need to create a new element as he could have the shrapnel removed all along.
 
Last edited:
Fox is the worst. At least Sony wised up. If Sony never wised up. They would both be tied for the worst
 
Ugh. Fox make good X-Men films but their attempt to hold on to the FF rights was a disaster and they need to hand them back. Instead we're just seeing spiteful comments about using them in the X-men movies to keep the FF out of Marvel's hands.

Sony just ruin everything they touch. It took two awful Ghost Rider films and three terrible Spider-Man films for them to give up.
 
Ugh. Fox make good X-Men films but their attempt to hold on to the FF rights was a disaster and they need to hand them back. Instead we're just seeing spiteful comments about using them in the X-men movies to keep the FF out of Marvel's hands.

Really? Where?

While not in the vein of the majority it's no different than comments calling for boycotts on Fox and Sony movies, denigrating their movies (long before release) just for existing and directing personal attacks at the casts and filmmakers.

And even if Fox did that, a question would arise... Would it be less a spiteful corporate tactic than what Marvel has been pulling with the removal of F4 from comic-based merchandising, removing logos from digital comics and erasing X-Men and F4 from the Marvel 2015 company characters poster just to stick it to Fox?

Spitefulness goes both ways.
 
Last edited:
Anyone read this article? I apologize if I'm not allowed to link it here:

http://grantland.com/hollywood-pros...-fallout-the-future-of-comic-book-franchises/

Now that we’ve all finished mopping up the blood of the Fantastic Four, the last and, I’d say, noisiest major casualty of summer movie season, maybe it’s time for a quick update about where we are in the grand attempt to make sure that every studio, and every chunk of the calendar, is colonized by comic-book movies now and forever. 2015 was always going to be a strange year in the Project Spandex timeline: Most of the movies in that big set of five-year plans — 10 Phase 3 Marvel Universe movies,1 10 (and counting) Phase Whatever DC movies, and a fistful of Fantastic-X-Spider-franchise offshoots — were announced in 2014, with their releases set to begin in 2016. So this year has been a kind of intermission: a summer of throat-clearing and tying up loose ends and, despite the presence of three new movies, expectancy.

Here’s the scoreboard: We had one huge hit, Avengers: Age of Ultron, which grossed $1.4 billion worldwide; one modest hit, Ant-Man, which currently stands at $326 million worldwide — great for Paul Rudd, but right near the dusty bottom of OK for a Marvel Universe movie; and one disaster, the aforementioned Fantastic Four, which looks to wind up as the lowest-grossing Marvel superhero movie since Elektra and this summer’s punch line/punching bag/franchise killer.

What the raw numbers tell us about genre fatigue, warning signs, and the box-office ceiling for the comic-book movies (as many as eight) that will arrive next year is, basically, nothing. But what struck me about those three entries is that they all arrived with a kind of weariness, shadowed by a sense of lost possibility. In fact, in each case, the ghost of an unmade, maybe better movie hovered over their arrivals. In one case, it was tragicomically explicit: Last week, the day before his movie opened, Fantastic Four’s director, Josh Trank, tweeted, “A year ago I had a fantastic version of this. And it would’ve recieved [sic] great reviews. You’ll probably never see it. That’s reality though.” Shortly after throwing that stick of dynamite onto the already burning bridge, he deleted the tweet, which is a bit like being a little kid who thinks you can’t see him when he covers his face with his hands.

Trank’s tweet was an impolitic tantrum by someone in danger of becoming known as an impolitic tantrum-thrower, but even if he is, to either a small or a large extent, the maker of his own misfortune, there’s nothing funny about seeing a director go from “promising” to whatever this is over the course of one movie. For every Colin Trevorrow, who went from making one calling-card indie to the stewardship of the $1.5 billion–grossing Jurassic World, there is going to be at least one Trank, who is sucked into the system before he has the political smarts, behind-the-camera experience, or emotional equipment to handle it. The bottom-line, boardroom-driven demands of this particular genre are not something that should be wished on any fledgling filmmaker.

Or even non-fledgling. What Trank was saying in that tweet, which is that he felt gutted by a system that thwarted his attempts to get the movie he wanted up onscreen, was not entirely different from this quote: “I feel every day like, I didn’t do enough, I didn’t do enough, I didn’t do enough. I wasn’t ready. Here’s failure. Here’s failure. Here’s compromise. Here’s compromise.” That wasn’t Trank; it was Joss Whedon — nobody’s idea of a nutcase or a naïf — in what amounted to an exit interview with BuzzFeed’s Adam B. Vary about his work on Age of Ultron. And Whedon had this to say about Ant-Man — not the version of Ant-Man that reached screens, but the version that was, to the delight of almost everyone who cares about these movies, going to be directed by Edgar Wright (Shaun of the Dead) before he departed the project over “creative differences”: “I don’t get it. I thought the script was not only the best script that Marvel had ever had, but the most Marvel script I’d read.” The Ant-Man that did get made was received genially enough by critics, but many of the reviews, even the positive ones, were heavy with “It’s fine, considering … ”

When, in the space of three months, all three movies in a genre arrive with very public news that they are not the movies they could have been, something has gone wrong. There is, I think, an increasing sense that every mark the comic-book genre is forced to hit — origin stories, Easter eggs, big-picture continuity, action beats, fan service, world-stakes battles, potential sequels, post-credit sequences — is obstructing them from being movies. It certainly seems to be keeping their makers (“architects” feels like a more accurate term than “creators”) from any sense of joy — directorial joy, cinematic joy, authorial joy, or even the obsessional joy that allowed Peter Jackson to commit himself to living in Middle-earth for 15 years or that has sent James Cameron off to whatever solar system in which he is currently purporting to make Avatar sequels. These comic-book movies are, first and foremost, assignments. Directors and writers try to get through them with their souls and spirits intact. They pat themselves down afterward, the way you do when you get off a roller coaster, to see if they’re still all there. Some end up less all there than others.

Sometime between the openings of Ant-Man and Fantastic Four, 20th Century Fox released the red-band trailer for Deadpool to great mirth from what is known — whether in comic-book or political circles — as “the base,” the element that must always be appeased, sometimes at the self-defeating expense of broader appeal. As of this writing, the trailer has been viewed almost 18 million times on YouTube2 — and what viewers have seen is a successfully sour in-joke that takes a rather vigorous dump on this whole enterprise. It stars Ryan Reynolds, who, if things had gone according to plan, would now be in negotiations for $20 million plus a piece of the back end on Green Lantern 4 but instead has gotten a second shot at the genre, this time as an air-quotes superhero who kills people and says, “Please don’t make the supersuit green! Or animated!” That’s funny, but it’s what is known in theater as an expensive laugh. Jokes that say “This is all ********” tend to make an audience feel slightly skeptical the next time you try to convince them that no, it isn’t.

The Deadpool trailer is fun, and if you’re a glass-half-full person, you might say that it’s proof that the genre is sturdy and entrenched enough to withstand a poke in the ribs. If, however, you are glass-half-empty, you might cite the trailer as evidence that impatience with the comic-book genre and its tropes has now become a real enough part of the discourse to make it out of Comic-Con conversations and chat-board rants and into the content of the actual movies. When a genre starts saying enough already about itself — and when it says that on the eve of five more years of movies — I wouldn’t say it’s time to worry, but perhaps it’s time to wonder.

Meanwhile, the genre continues to reshape some careers, and misshape and mangle others. Last week brought the dispiriting news that Ben Affleck, who pretty much had his pick of projects after Argo, has, for the second time, postponed his adaptation of Dennis Lehane’s novel Live by Night. When the adaptation was first announced almost three years ago, it felt like an ideal project for him — a rematch with a novelist, a milieu, and a genre for which he has a real feel. But the film, once scheduled to open this December, and then moved to October 2016, is now slated for “2017.”3

Let’s keep that date in quotes, because Affleck is now going to follow Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice with The Justice League Part One and then, apparently, a standalone Batman movie, after which one imagines he will show up for The Justice League Part Two and perhaps another couple of Batman films since everything is a trilogy now. That plan — let’s call it the Full Downey — would, by my calculations, keep him in the cowl and cape until sometime around his 50th birthday in 2022, a strange turn of events for an actor I thought had been cured of this particular hunger after emerging sadder but wiser from Daredevil a dozen years back. Affleck, after all, is the guy who starred in the George Reeves drama Hollywoodland, which in retrospect looks like a pretty prescient cautionary tale about what running around pretending to be a superhero can do to your insides. (“Putting on the uncomfortable, cheesy suit — I understood that,” Affleck told me when I interviewed him in 2012. “And I understood what it was like to feel limited by perceptions and having ambitions to do things that were more interesting.”) Maybe he’ll be great; maybe these movies will be great; maybe everything will be great. But Affleck is a talented director, and those are a lot of prime midlife years to hand over to seeing how severe and menacing you can make the lower half of your face look.

Which is why I can’t feel too bad for any of the stars of Fantastic Four, a failure so clear-cut (9 percent on Rotten Tomatoes, C-minus CinemaScore, directorial seppuku, lousy opening weekend) that it should occasion at an absolute minimum some corporate hand-wringing about what to do next. I mean, I suppose some Fox exec will be forced to stand up at the next Comic-Con, chin trembling, and bravely insist that Fantastic Four 2 will still open on June 9, 2017 — unless the studio waves a white flag and hands creative control of the property back to Marvel, as Sony did in February with Spider-Man. But either way, if The Amazing Spider-Man and Fantastic Four haven’t taught the makers of these films a definitive lesson about premature reboots in the absence of popular demand, I don’t know what will. In the history of comic-book movies, I hope Fantastic Four goes down as The Movie That Failed To Devour Miles Teller And Michael B. Jordan, the stars of Whiplash and Fruitvale Station, respectively, and two of the most talented American actors under 30 to emerge in the past few years. They jumped into the maw of this slavering beast because that is what the entire movie industry now tells young and middle-aged leading men they’re supposed to do. And the beast spat them out. Here’s my take: They’re lucky. They now have a choice to make. They can decide they want to wait five or 10 years, as Reynolds and Affleck did, for another invitation to the party, or they can go back to being, you know, actors. There are worse fates.

Bolded some interesting bits. Fantastic overview of the genre today.
 
Fox gets a pass for me. Never thought I'd say that 5-10 years ago, but they've turned it around. It's a shame they couldn't get the deal from Marvel. X-Men TV rights is where its at and that's what they need to get before they even consider giving FF up before the next deadline.
 
I had seen comments online before Fantastic Fours release like "Why are they rebooting after such a short time?"

Yet of the four properties getting/gotten recent movie reboots Fantastic Four was actually the longest between movies

Years between Fantastic Four 2 and Fan4stic = 8 years
Years between Superman Returns and Man of Steel = 7 years
Years between TDKR and Batman v Superman = 4 years
Years between Amazing Spider-Man 2 & Civil War = 2 years

Strange how that works.
 
Last edited:
I have seen comments online before Fantastic Fours release like "Why are they rebooting after such a short time?"

Yet of the four properties getting/gotten recent movie reboots Fantastic Four was actually the longest between movies

Years between Fantastic Four 2 and Fan4stic = 8 years
Years between Superman Returns and Man of Steel = 7 years
Years between The Dark Knight Rises & Batman v Superman = 4 years
Years between Amazing Spider-Man 2 & Civil War = 2 years

Strange how that works

Yeah but you are just taking things out of context and spinning the argument to your own whim. The key point is, "in the absence of popular demand". Spidey in the MCU with Downey Jr. is exactly that, popular demand. Batman versus Superman (although you can argue this given the lack of WB success beyond Batman) is popular demand. These are clearly fan service moves to generate buzz. None of that applied to FF. Even Deadpool is basically a fan service film, and a kinda sorta reboot for the character.
 
Last edited:
That's fair and I realised it too which is why upon reading my post back I editted it (as you were typing your reply) to address how the GA examined the time difference between ROTSS & the reboot being too short but don't conisder the years between the others as too short.

;)

(I should note I saw these comments not on a message board or a CBM or related website but a general showbiz newspaper, on a F4 article but not on other CBM reboot articles)
 
Last edited:
Not after the ****fest that was Tranks FFINO.:down

Two different properties. Just like DC making Green Lantern and Jonah Hex doesn't take away from TDK.

I completely understand that Fantastic Four fans are upset and rightfully so, but objectively Fox has had successes with X-Men and appear to have learned from the mistakes made with The Last Stand and Origins.

At Sony they just ran around helpless until Marvel came to the rescue.
 
While not in the vein of the majority it's no different than comments calling for boycotts on Fox and Sony movies, denigrating their movies (long before release) just for existing

If you really believe that people are denigrating these movies just for existing, you clearly have not been paying attention. I don't know where you've been, but the only movie that's been flogged before it came out was the FFINO, which clearly deserved it. But I guess letting a little thing like "facts" get in the way of your argument isn't a big deal.
 
If you really believe that people are denigrating these movies just for existing, you clearly have not been paying attention. I don't know where you've been, but the only movie that's been flogged before it came out was the FFINO, which clearly deserved it. But I guess letting a little thing like "facts" get in the way of your argument isn't a big deal.

:up:
 
Actually some have been dismissing or conveniently ignoring every solid lead of misfortune surrounding that film that it's become second nature.
 
If you really believe that people are denigrating these movies just for existing, you clearly have not been paying attention. I don't know where you've been, but the only movie that's been flogged before it came out was the FFINO, which clearly deserved it. But I guess letting a little thing like "facts" get in the way of your argument isn't a big deal.

Yep. FF2015 was a mess. I don't feel like Deadpool, XMA and Gambit are getting anywhere near as much hate. In fact, I don't want the X-Men to revert to Marvel although there are some characters that the MCU can use because it would bog them down with too many characters and properties and stretch out phases for far too long. We aren't getting Iron Man or Hulk sequels in Phase 3 and adding in all the various X-characters would just be too much.

The FF are a simpler property with more connections to the Marvel U and I can't see a sequel or reboot happening at Fox without even worse box office returns and they need to return to Marvel for that reason alone. Fox won't bother with another flop which nobody asked for and if they do then their rights extension isn't going to do much for them with such a toxic asset eating up a release date that could have gone to a successful film.
 
This is what I don't get, you hire a young up and coming director because they have a certain 'style' and then beat that style out of them.
Edgar Wright - Ant Man
Josh Trank - FF
Mark Webb ASM

Why bother to hire these guy in the first place? They'd be off going with established experienced directors they trust to make decisions.
 
Two different properties. Just like DC making Green Lantern and Jonah Hex doesn't take away from TDK.

I completely understand that Fantastic Four fans are upset and rightfully so, but objectively Fox has had successes with X-Men and appear to have learned from the mistakes made with The Last Stand and Origins.

At Sony they just ran around helpless until Marvel came to the rescue.

They had a relapse. Took a step back.The FFINO felt like a Rothman era CBM. There's no excuse for the type of CBM like this in this day and age.
 
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"