Fox vs. Sony - who is worse?

[Flint Marko]

I don't see them being huge hits, but if the budget is under control and with the proper marketing, they could end up being rather moderately successful and if we get good films out of them, could really enrich the X-Men Cinematic Universe.

True, but to take my initial trepidations even further, I think I'd be a little shocked if most of these spin-offs were actually made. I think a deadpool movie is guaranteed, but after that? I dunno, something just makes me think Fox is gonna get cold feet and stick to more X-men and Wolverine sequels and not really venture out as much as we would like.
I could easily be wrong, but that's just my gut feeling for the time being.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Deadpool is a very popular character and if his movie is any good whatsoever, I expect to do well. Plus he's rather unique and would likely play well to the masses as a result.

I have less faith in Gambit.

 

[bbjeg]

Fantastic Four wasn't so good but X-Men (namely X2 and DoFP) are great. Sony on the other hand has way more misses than hits for me.

 

[Flint Marko]

Deadpool is a very popular character and if his movie is any good whatsoever, I expect to do well. Plus he's rather unique and would likely play well to the masses as a result.

I have less faith in Gambit.

Agreed. Deadpool is the only spin off I see working, at least in Fox's hands.

 

[Iceman]

I don't even want spinoffs anyway and if they can't make a success out of Wolverine films I don't know how much enthusiasm they'll have for further solo character spinoffs.

 

[def28]

Agreed. Deadpool is the only spin off I see working, at least in Fox's hands.

The script is awesome and probably the most faithful of all their flicks. With the right director and writer X-Force could be great too.

 

[First Avenger]

If it's as good as the test footage I'll see it. However I don't see Fox making a proper Deadloool movie, but we'll just have to wait and find out.
Anyways you can tell how poor a studio is when their best move in recent years is undoing the continuity screwed up by past movies. And for the record I really enjoyed DOFP, but I give credit to Singer and Vaughn entirely.

Can't say I disagree with that either. Maybe they will surprise us.

 

[kedrell]

You could make a case for Sony right now being where Fox was in 2009.

Arad = Rothman ????

 

[kedrell]

Agreed. Deadpool is the only spin off I see working, at least in Fox's hands.

I don't have much faith in that movie. I consider the character to be a parody anyway. It's been a long time since the last parody movie that didn't suck. I think Walk Hard was the last one I can remember.

 

[HighVoltage]

FOX vs SONY: The Race to the Bottom!

We all have had to deal with some mediocre to terrible Marvel movies from each respective company, but I want to know who do you think has proven to be a bigger disappointment overall?
Sony's mismanagement and poor decision-making are well documented at this point. Every Spider-man film from them since the second Raimi installment has suffered from an incredible amount of studio interference that has brought the once dependable franchise into a steady decline, showing how out of touch they are with movie-goers. They sincerely thought a hastily put together Sinister Six movie would make them money and be their "Avengers".

I dont have problems with a Sinister Six Movie, a rival studio is doing the same approach with a ripoff ans shh gave them a section.

In light of recent events some might say they are the obvious choice, but let's keep in mind they have at least been willing to talk to Marvel in an attempt to make a deal. Yes that deal did not happen, but with recent rumors that talks have again started between the two, it's worth noting that they at least understand what they are doing sucks and should not happen.
Fox, on the other hand, has yet to do anything like that. They did all they could with Daredevil to keep those rights from reverting, but thankfully their production fell through (I think their director bolted) and Marvel was able to get the character back home. But, and a lot of people don't know this, when it became clear to them that they weren't going to meet the deadline they apparently approached Marvel and asked for an extension. Marvel agreed, but only if they could use Doom, Galactus, and the Silver Surfer in the MCU - Fox was quick to turn this down in favor of their newest atrocity, the much-maligned FF reboot.
For those not in the know, Trank's upcoming disaster was made solely to keep the rights (picture how awesome a MCU Doom would be, and then realize we won't see that anytime soon thanks to Fox and this movie) and has been rumored to be an incredibly troubled production. Both Faraci and El Mayimbe have tweeted in the past week or so about how they are both hearing awful things about this movie, and radio silence from Fox is completely indicative that things aren't going so smoothly for them. Apparently turning one of the greatest villains in all of comics into a blogger ended up being a poor idea - who would have thought!
So while their X-men properties have been getting back on the right track, I'd say their inability to play ball with Marvel and insistence on keeping the rights to characters they could never hope to faithfully adapt makes them the bigger disappointment in my eyes. Yes I enjoyed First Class and DOFP, but let's be honest; once Singer and Vaughn leave, Fox will be back to their old ways cranking out turd after turd to meet their deadline.
So, what do you think? Who is the worst offender, and why?

And the problem is ? is obvious fox keeping the right, but thanks with this, we have movies about characters Gotg.

 

[hippie_hunter]

You could make a case for Sony right now being where Fox was in 2009.

Arad = Rothman ????

I disagree, I find the situations between 20th Century Fox in 2009 and Sony Pictures of today to be completely different.

20th Century Fox under the reign of Tom Rothman was motivated by pure financial greed, plain and simple. They didn't care about movie quality or anything, they just expected people to pay for their movies simply because of the IP and viewed movie goers as chumps. It's not just how they treated the Marvel properties, but look at many of their IPs such as Alien/Predator, their crappy kids movies, etc. While their movies were ****, 20th Century Fox had some of the best profit margins in the business.

Sony Pictures on the other hand is just straight up ineptitude. Say what you may about 20th Century Fox under Rothman, but at least they had direction. Sony Pictures on the other hand doesn't even know what to do with the IPs they have, again beyond just Spider-Man. They had high hopes for Spider-Man, but they spent so much money on the latest film that they either broke even, lost money, or made so little that it wasn't even worth the return of investment. They lost money on Men in Black 3 for crying out loud even though it made $600 million.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

You could make a case for Sony right now being where Fox was in 2009.

Arad = Rothman ????

While I'm not a fan of his suggestions lately and he's had his role in the Spider-Man IP being run into the ground, Arad has nowhere near the power that Rothman had so they aren't really comparable.

Otherwise hippie hunter's explanation is pretty much how I feel about the two studios.

 

[psylockolussus]

Fox. They have the longest running superhero film franchise at the moment! They had bad films in the past but their recent ones are good especially compare to the last 5 Marvel films made by Sony (Spider-Man/Ghost Rider)

 

[JEM]

I don't see them being huge hits, but if the budget is under control and with the proper marketing, they could end up being rather moderately successful and if we get good films out of them, could really enrich the X-Men Cinematic Universe.

I think X men Apocalypse is very important for X Men Cinematic Universe.
If it is a huge hit, you could see a boost for all their projects ( X Force, Gambit, Wolverine 3). Deadpool comes before but he seems have a huge fanbase .

 

[Dark Raven]

They're probably about the same. There have been some bad films from Fox but Sony has also had the Ghost Rider movies and seem to be directionless with future Spider-Man films.

Fox has had a bunch of bad films I didn't enjoy and maybe because they've put out more comic book movies overall, there are more misses amongst them.

 

[Iceman]

The future is more difficult for Sony as they are on last chance saloon with their team film and Spidey is just one character. No one comic character is going to flourish when forced to have a film about them every few years for the rest of time. Even Iron Man despite having just made the most worldwide for any solo character doesn't get multiple sequels announced as it just isn't normal for a solo character to be beating us to death like this.

 

[Havok83]

Sony. Fox's movies have been getting better whereas Sony's have been getting worse. They could have redeemed themselves with ASM, but then ASM2 came out and undid all of that.

 

[starscream22]

I'm not putting them on a pedestal, just playing devil's advocate.

I'm talking about the 1st few films which totally redeemed the industry to the GA after B&R. As in Spider-man 1 & 2 and X1 & 2. Marvel obviously weren't confident in making their own universe at the time having handed out non-reverting rights to some of their biggest properties and DC even less so. Once those films came out and did well Marvel got their act together, and once Marvel got their act together WB/DC started getting their act together. Sony & Fox may have since made a hell of a lot of mistakes but to ignore their contribution altogether is doing them a disservice.

If we're going to lecture about ignoring contributions then why are you leaving out Blade and Men In Black?

Playing devils advocate is kind of pointless when the fact is that Fox, Sony, New line, Universal and Lion's Gate all got a lot of my money back then when I didn't know any better. Twice if you count the DVD purchase/rentals.

Then in 2005 "Batman Begins" came and raised the bar on CBM quality, while Fox was declining with films like "Elektra", "Origins" and "FF".

Fast forward to today and there's a new Golden Age of CBM's with Marvel on top so films like "Spirit of Vengeance" "The Wolverine" and "ASM2" are NOT going to cut it for me regardless of who started what first.

So I wish people would stop acting like we owe these studio's something. They got paid well back then. And it doesn't take much to remember their "contributions" when all I have to do is look at the CBM section of my DVD/Blu-ray cabinet where those particular movies are ironically collecting the most dust.

 

[hippie_hunter]

If we're going to lecture about ignoring contributions then why are you leaving out Blade and Men In Black?

Because when the Blade franchise started, most didn't even know that he was a comic book character. And at this point, Men in Black isn't even a comic book franchise. Sony has far more control over the IP than Marvel Entertainment does and Marvel clearly doesn't even care about it. Blade and Men in Black didn't influence the current age of comic book films the way X-Men and Spider-Man did.

Fast forward to today and there's a new Golden Age of CBM's with Marvel on top so films like "Spirit of Vengeance" "The Wolverine" and "ASM2" are NOT going to cut it for me regardless of who started what first.

I actually liked the Wolverine. But I do agree with your point.

 

[Havok83]

most liked The Wolverine. Unlike its predecessor, it was generally well recieved

 

[Iceman]

If we're going to lecture about ignoring contributions then why are you leaving out Blade and Men In Black?

Playing devils advocate is kind of pointless when the fact is that Fox, Sony, New line, Universal and Lion's Gate all got a lot of my money back then when I didn't know any better. Twice if you count the DVD purchase/rentals.

Then in 2005 "Batman Begins" came and raised the bar on CBM quality, while Fox was declining with films like "Elektra", "Origins" and "FF".

Fast forward to today and there's a new Golden Age of CBM's with Marvel on top so films like "Spirit of Vengeance" "The Wolverine" and "ASM2" are NOT going to cut it for me regardless of who started what first.

So I wish people would stop acting like we owe these studio's something. They got paid well back then. And it doesn't take much to remember their "contributions" when all I have to do is look at the CBM section of my DVD/Blu-ray cabinet where those particular movies are ironically collectthe above might mean something.ing the most dust.

I'm the one who's saying to look at the earlier contributions of Fox & Sony not you (you're just criticising them outright), so it's up to me which examples I use to illustrate that. Not to mention that those films you mention were barely recognised as comic book films by the general audience when they came out.

I've criticised both studios plenty over the last decade but you seem to want to take it to the next level where they're just evil corporations who have never and will never produce a good comic film. Those early X & Spidey-films did as much as any other film before and after to take us from obscurity to where we are now (I've never even seen a hater of those studios deny that) but you write as if you weren't around back then. You certainly weren't reading my posts as I've given them their due criticism, just not without forgetting the good times.

 

[starscream22]

Because when the Blade franchise started, most didn't even know that he was a comic book character. And at this point, Men in Black isn't even a comic book franchise. Sony has far more control over the IP than Marvel Entertainment does and Marvel clearly doesn't even care about it. Blade and Men in Black didn't influence the current age of comic book films the way X-Men and Spider-Man did.

You know it and I know it.....H3ll, Avi Arad even put it out there that those 2 Franchises help sell a "RELUCTANT" Fox studio on taking the X-men off their hands (Fire sale cheap unfortunately).

So I don't see how using the masses ignorance is an excuse to slight the true starters of Marvel CBM's.

To me your reasons are burying the truth more so than telling it. Now if Both Blade and MIB were both crap then you'd have a better argument... But they were both successful and both by Marvel.

I actually liked the Wolverine. But I do agree with your point.

Unfortunately for me their (Fox) Silver Samurai and Viper were no different than what they did to Deadpool in Origins.

 

[Iceman]

I actually liked the Wolverine. But I do agree with your point.

The point that they are making some crap non-X films today, a point that noone is contesting!

And I like The Wolverine too. I thought most people did.

 

[smallville fan]

As of right now, Sony. Avi Arad-->Enough said.

 

[starscream22]

Not to mention that those films you mention were barely recognised as comic book films by the general audience when they came out.

Wow...you guys sure do love using the love using the GA when you think it's convenient.

HELLO, THAT WAS THE POINT!

Blade proved that a rated R film based off of a Marvel Comic Book could be taken seriously and be successful!

To deny this is asinine. Why do you think Studio's were so reluctant up until this point? H3ll Fox still didn't have much faith in source material which is why Singer made the X-men look like Neo. So yeah thanks for bringing that all back up for me....

Regardless if fans knew Blade and MIB were Marvel properties they still liked them which is all that mattered to the studios who followed suit.

TRUE OR NOT?