Fox vs. Sony - who is worse?

[Decepticonus]

Raimi's films had a few changes, but were far more faithful.

The ASM films were filled with stupid stuff like Peter's parents being more significant than Uncle Ben and Aunt May, Norman dying before ever becoming the Green Goblin, Connors having no family, Harry killing Gwen, and Peter being a unlikable hipster type.

Raimi's yeah was more faithful but it made it boring at times.

Peter's parents being significant was a welcome change I believe. His parents are usually taken for granted. here's a kid who lives with his Aunt & May because his parents are....not....here....? It's like a Disney plot. Of course we comic nerds know of them but general audiences don't and I'm sure wanted to know. Plus, it give them something to go off. A boy who's father left him who's coming to an age of becoming a man and wants his father back to show him the way. And he's a kid, when we're young we always wants to know this stuff. Where is my dad? Is mom coming back too? Where did they go? Huh/ Huh? Why? Why?

Norman dying???? Ha, you bought that. I don't think anyone else did. We didn't see "the body".

Connors having no family? Sure, maybe honestly it did not bother me. I could careless either way.

Harry killing Gwen? Yes true not faithful but last I checked Eddie went to church to commit suicide not ask god to kill Parker. Gwen was not Brock's girlfriend. Where was Harry's drug habit? Sandman killing Uncle Ben? Green Goblin trying to kill MJ as if she were Gwen and on and on I could go. Yes, a few changes, riiiiiight.
Harry killing Gwen did not bother me that much. Technically, Green Goblin still killed Gwen. Plus, I'm curious to know what direction they take with this. Think about it - Parker's girl he loved was just killed by his best friend. I believe that spells DRAMA.

Um beg your pardon? A hipster? He's into science and skateboards? Seems like an average kid. Kids enjoy skating still... I think. And more than ever are young people getting interested in science. The last Parker was very a typical, cliche NEEEEEEEEEEEEERD. Which is kind of dead now. Being nerd is cool and being the jock, well everyone hates you now not just the nerd.

 

[Spider-Vader]

Sony is definitely worse right now. Fox is currently on a streak of 3 good movies in a row. Sony's last 3 Spider-Man movies are s***, good & more s*** with their current plans (without Marvel stepping in) looking like it'll have even more s***.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Sony hasn't had a 'winning season' since 2004. That's almost as bad as the Oakland Raiders. You don't go that long without winning unless management is abysmal. It isn't a fluke.

 

[metaphysician]

Nope. They gave it all up to Marvel in 2011 in exchange for Marvel's cut of the film gross. It was an incredibly bad decision by Sony.

I'm not so sure. Or rather, yes, its a bad decision on its own, but IIRC, Sony didn't really have a choice. They needed the cash, and they probably wanted the good rep with Marvel/Disney for hoped future collaboration.

 

[metaphysician]

Wait, people act as if Thor: The Dark World and Iron Man 3 are failures

Well, Thor 2 is the weakest performing MCU movie since Avengers, and their poorest reviewed ever. So, on a relative scale, sure, Thor 2 is a *relative* failure. Of course, most studios would love for their "failures" to make 660M or so.

IM3, that is just angry fanboys still pissed about... something. Probably some combination of "It was not the Dark Knight movie I was promised, with realism and grittiness and heroes failing and innocents dying", and Pepper Potts continuing to not be a pure damsel in distress ( as well as continuing to live, and thus prevent Tony from being a pure ladies man indulgent fantasy ).

 

[First Avenger]

Well, Thor 2 is the weakest performing MCU movie since Avengers, and their poorest reviewed ever. So, on a relative scale, sure, Thor 2 is a *relative* failure. Of course, most studios would love for their "failures" to make 660M or so.

IM3, that is just angry fanboys still pissed about... something. Probably some combination of "It was not the Dark Knight movie I was promised, with realism and grittiness and heroes failing and innocents dying", and Pepper Potts continuing to not be a pure damsel in distress ( as well as continuing to live, and thus prevent Tony from being a pure ladies man indulgent fantasy ).

There is always a lower grossing movie,but if your lowest grossing movie makes 650 millions with a budget of 170,I'd say you are in pretty good shape.

 

[NealKenneth]

IM3, that is just angry fanboys still pissed about... something. Probably some combination of "It was not the Dark Knight movie I was promised, with realism and grittiness and heroes failing and innocents dying", and Pepper Potts continuing to not be a pure damsel in distress ( as well as continuing to live, and thus prevent Tony from being a pure ladies man indulgent fantasy ).

It's not just "angry fanboys" who consider Iron Man 3 a failure. The biggest problem with the film was that the villain was lame, but it also had jumbled tone, terrible action scenes, and gaping plot holes. I don't think many people were hoping for or expecting IM3 to be "gritty" and who the heck was hoping Pepper Pots was going to die? And isn't it a bit delusional to say Pepper Pots was "pure damsel in distress" until IM3 considering she played a crucial role in defeating the villains of both IM and IM2?

If there has been fanboyism in regards to assessing IM3, it's from the Shane Black and hardcore Iron Man fanboys who insist the film is worth watching. I literally saw it in theaters a second time because there was so much hype from those crowds that I thought I had missed something the first time around.

I didn't. There are good parts but, overall, IM3 sucks.

 

[Angryfantasyfan]

I'm not so sure. Or rather, yes, its a bad decision on its own, but IIRC, Sony didn't really have a choice. They needed the cash, and they probably wanted the good rep with Marvel/Disney for hoped future collaboration.

It looks like they bet the house on the reboot.

During the fourth quarter of fiscal 2011, the Company completed a two-way transaction to simplify our relationship with Sony Pictures. In this transaction, the Company purchased Sony Pictures participation in Spider-Man merchandising, while at the same time, Sony Pictures purchased from the Company our participation in Spider-Man films. This transaction will allow the Company to control and fully benefit from all Spider-Man merchandising activity, while Sony Pictures will continue to produce and distribute Spider-Man films.

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2012/07/09/spider-man-saves-the-day-but-not-for-sony.aspx

 

[Flint Marko]

It's not just "angry fanboys" who consider Iron Man 3 a failure. The biggest problem with the film was that the villain was lame, but it also had jumbled tone, terrible action scenes, and gaping plot holes. I don't think many people were hoping for or expecting IM3 to be "gritty" and who the heck was hoping Pepper Pots was going to die? And isn't it a bit delusional to say Pepper Pots was "pure damsel in distress" until IM3 considering she played a crucial role in defeating the villains of both IM and IM2?

If there has been fanboyism in regards to assessing IM3, it's from the Shane Black and hardcore Iron Man fanboys who insist the film is worth watching. I literally saw it in theaters a second time because there was so much hype from those crowds that I thought I had missed something the first time around.

I didn't. There are good parts but, overall, IM3 sucks.

Thinking it sucked is one thing, but pretending it failed at all is another.

 

[def28]

Well, Thor 2 is the weakest performing MCU movie since Avengers, and their poorest reviewed ever. So, on a relative scale, sure, Thor 2 is a *relative* failure. Of course, most studios would love for their "failures" to make 660M or so.

I don't think Marvel would consider Thor 2's box office a failure in any way. Even in comparison to the others. That film made them a ****load of cash and was a big success at the box office. If it made Incredible Hulk numbers that would have been a different story.

 

[Flint Marko]

I don't think Marvel would consider Thor 2's box office a failure in any way. Even in comparison to the others. That film made them a ****load of cash and was a big success at the box office.

Not to mention it was received moderately well with critics.
Once again there's a difference between a movie failing to impress you, and a movie outright "failing". Green Lantern, Jonah Hex, ASM 2, all those movies failed; Thor 2 and Iron man 3 did not. There's almost no debate there.

 

[def28]

Agreed

 

[NealKenneth]

Once again there's a difference between a movie failing to impress you, and a movie outright "failing". Green Lantern, Jonah Hex, ASM 2, all those movies failed; Thor 2 and Iron man 3 did not. There's almost no debate there.

I don't deny that Iron Man 3 was a financial success. It also succeeded in other ways. However, Iron Man 3 was a failure in ways that are more important to the people behind the MCU than the things that went well. For example:

Did anyone become more excited for Avengers 2 because of Iron Man 3? Nope! I doubt it will even effect the plot at all.
Did anyone care when Iron Man 4 wasn't announced for Phase 3? Nope! I don't recall a single petition demanding it or any disappointment at all.
Did Iron Man 3 complete the trilogy in such a way that fans will want to watch all three together? Nope! This is no Return of the Jedi or Last Crusade...nobody wants a limited edition of all three films in a fancy case with a bonus disc of special features or whatever.

The answers to those questions are a big deal to Marvel. I'm sure they were happy IM3 made a lot of money but it's much more important to them to build the future product. A mediocre product that just soaks up money in the present is worse for the future of a franchise than releasing nothing at all.

The goal is to make a film that fans want to see again and again, and to get them excited for more. In that way, IM3 was a total failure. The best evidence I can find to back this up (besides the three questions/examples I just mentioned) is a list of Marvel films ranked by what percentage of their total box office gross was earned on opening weekend.

A percentage of 55% would indicate that a little more than half of the total gross was made on opening weekend, meaning that most people who saw the movie were just trying it out based on trailers, hype, or because they enjoyed past films in the franchise. A lower percentage like 30% means some people were going to see it more than once and recommending it to their friends. Basically, the lower percentage a movie got, the better. Of the 36 Marvel films released so far, here are 10 worst by this measurement:

10) Iron Man 3
9) Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance
8) X-Men: The Last Stand
7) Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer
6) Spider-Man 3
5) The Amazing Spider-Man 2
4) Hulk
3) X-Men Origins: Wolverine
2) Elektra
1) Punisher: War Zone

Source: http://boxofficemojo.com/franchises...=marvelcomics.htm&sort=perc&order=DESC&p=.htm

Does anyone want to have a Marvel movie marathon of those ten films? PM me and we can watch them together (sarcasm)

Anyway, of those ten, you'll only find two (IM3 and ASM2) that people still defend, and they just so happen to be the two most recently released. Hmmmmm...could it be that it's just taking time for fanboys to admit they suck (like always)?

In conclusion, Iron Man 3 was a failure.

 

[Decepticonus]

Anyway, of those ten, you'll only find two (IM3 and ASM2) that people still defend, and they just so happen to be the two most recently released. Hmmmmm...could it be that it's just taking time for fanboys to admit they suck (like always)?

I dunno. I hated IM3 coming out of the theater. I love Spider-Man coming out of the theater, got it on blu-ray, watched it again and still loved it.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Did anyone become more excited for Avengers 2 because of Iron Man 3? Nope! I doubt it will even effect the plot at all.

Actually rumors about Age of Ultron's plot suggest that Iron Man 3 does play an important part in building up to the movie with the whole Tony being retired thing and all.

Did anyone care when Iron Man 4 wasn't announced for Phase 3? Nope! I don't recall a single petition demanding it or any disappointment at all.

Most already accepted that an Iron Man 4 was most likely not going to happen to begin with. Everything already suggested that there was going to be what was announced. Thus there was no disappointment when people were not expecting it.

Add in that Iron Man will be an integral character to Captain America 3 and Robert Downey Jr. will be finishing his tenure as Tony Stark with the Phase 3 Avengers films, it mitigates the need for an Iron Man 4 and calms down the disappointment.

Did Iron Man 3 complete the trilogy in such a way that fans will want to watch all three together? Nope! This is no Return of the Jedi or Last Crusade...nobody wants a limited edition of all three films in a fancy case with a bonus disc of special features or whatever.

To be fair, no modern trilogy is like Star Wars or Indiana Jones. You're setting the bar a little too high there bud.

 

[Harley2004]

Not to mention it was received moderately well with critics.
Once again there's a difference between a movie failing to impress you, and a movie outright "failing". Green Lantern, Jonah Hex, ASM 2, all those movies failed; Thor 2 and Iron man 3 did not. There's almost no debate there.

Thor 2, did not fail, but was the definition of a safe studio movie. The problem with Marvel Studios was in that movie, predictable and another completely forgettable villain. IM3, was more successful anyway you want to measure in comparison to IM2, which just served to promote another movie.

On Fox, considering what they have done with the last 3 x-men movies, Wolverine too. The 3rd act was bad. They are doing a good job right now.

 

[NealKenneth]

Sorry, I should have said "I doubt [Iron Man 3] will effect the plot [of Avengers 2] in a satisfying way." The alleged character development of IM3 was that Tony "let go" of building Iron Men, which is why he blows them up in a moment of sheer stupidity. Well, we've already seen the Hulkbuster armor in the trailer...I suppose it could be someone besides Tony in there but, either way, it appears he's been making armor. I'm guessing it'll take almost zero convincing to get him out of retirement and back in a suit.

The only change they made in IM3 that I expect to carry over to Avengers 2 is Tony having the arc reactor removed, which is something they could have established in a single line of dialogue. I don't really mind this because it means I can skip IM3 when watching the films in order, but it's definitely a wasted opportunity. I guess we'll just have to wait a few more months to see which one of us is right.

You're right about people not expecting an Iron Man 4. That probably went a long way to diffusing anyone who really, really wanted it to be in Phase 3. But still, who are those people? Even in wishlists for Phase 4, I haven't seen people getting excited for Iron Man 4.

I disagree that no modern trilogy is like Star Wars or Indiana Jones. I would say Lord of the Rings is at least on the level of Star Wars and that The Hunger Games is on the level of Indiana Jones (although HG is going to be four films for some reason.)

Those trilogies are based on books, however, and filmed with the intentions of being a trilogy.

A better comparison would be Toy Story. Pixar was launched with Toy Story, MCU was launched with Iron Man. They both completed trilogies of their first films while also making a wide variety of other films. I would say Iron Man is on the level of Toy Story, but Toy Story 3 is miles and miles beyond Iron Man 3.

 

[Flint Marko]

I don't deny that Iron Man 3 was a financial success. It also succeeded in other ways. However, Iron Man 3 was a failure in ways that are more important to the people behind the MCU than the things that went well. For example:

Did anyone become more excited for Avengers 2 because of Iron Man 3? Nope! I doubt it will even effect the plot at all.
Did anyone care when Iron Man 4 wasn't announced for Phase 3? Nope! I don't recall a single petition demanding it or any disappointment at all.
Did Iron Man 3 complete the trilogy in such a way that fans will want to watch all three together? Nope! This is no Return of the Jedi or Last Crusade...nobody wants a limited edition of all three films in a fancy case with a bonus disc of special features or whatever.

The answers to those questions are a big deal to Marvel. I'm sure they were happy IM3 made a lot of money but it's much more important to them to build the future product. A mediocre product that just soaks up money in the present is worse for the future of a franchise than releasing nothing at all.

The goal is to make a film that fans want to see again and again, and to get them excited for more. In that way, IM3 was a total failure. The best evidence I can find to back this up (besides the three questions/examples I just mentioned) is a list of Marvel films ranked by what percentage of their total box office gross was earned on opening weekend.

A percentage of 55% would indicate that a little more than half of the total gross was made on opening weekend, meaning that most people who saw the movie were just trying it out based on trailers, hype, or because they enjoyed past films in the franchise. A lower percentage like 30% means some people were going to see it more than once and recommending it to their friends. Basically, the lower percentage a movie got, the better. Of the 36 Marvel films released so far, here are 10 worst by this measurement:

10) Iron Man 3
9) Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance
8) X-Men: The Last Stand
7) Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer
6) Spider-Man 3
5) The Amazing Spider-Man 2
4) Hulk
3) X-Men Origins: Wolverine
2) Elektra
1) Punisher: War Zone

Source: http://boxofficemojo.com/franchises...=marvelcomics.htm&sort=perc&order=DESC&p=.htm

Does anyone want to have a Marvel movie marathon of those ten films? PM me and we can watch them together (sarcasm)

Anyway, of those ten, you'll only find two (IM3 and ASM2) that people still defend, and they just so happen to be the two most recently released. Hmmmmm...could it be that it's just taking time for fanboys to admit they suck (like always)?

In conclusion, Iron Man 3 was a failure.

This is complete nonsense from top to bottom. What are you even basing any of this on? What polls have you conducted showing that the film did not excite anyone for Avengers 2? And what would that even have to do with it being a failure or not? Have you not been paying attention to the fact that Iron Man 4 has largely never been in the cards, and that the one time it was hinted at being in production when Downey was on Ellen, the entire crowd erupted in applause? Marvel and fans alike are all wanting them to dig further into their library to adapt more characters, so it would make sense that an Iron Man 4 isn't on the table.
Your box office analysis could potentially be damning if it was coupled with other factors that showed the movie was indeed a "failure", but we are talking about a film that made over a billion dollars and has, by all measurable standards, largely been well received by critics and audiences alike. You're projecting your own feelings onto a worldwide audience that went out in droves to see this movie and who for the most part seemed to enjoy it.
This film is far from a failure. That is not up for debate.

 

[DA_Champion]

Marvel is doing the right thing putting Iron Man on the shelf for a while. He is their most popular character, he's had three good movies, but now for an extended while he's only going to be a supporting character in other movies, same With Batman for WB/DC.

Will Fox get the same idea about putting Wolverine on the shelf for a while and tell movies about Rogue, Dazzler, and Cyclops?

No, they won't.

 

[Lorus]

Sorry, I should have said "I doubt [Iron Man 3] will effect the plot [of Avengers 2] in a satisfying way." The alleged character development of IM3 was that Tony "let go" of building Iron Men, which is why he blows them up in a moment of sheer stupidity. Well, we've already seen the Hulkbuster armor in the trailer...I suppose it could be someone besides Tony in there but, either way, it appears he's been making armor. I'm guessing it'll take almost zero convincing to get him out of retirement and back in a suit.

The only change they made in IM3 that I expect to carry over to Avengers 2 is Tony having the arc reactor removed, which is something they could have established in a single line of dialogue. I don't really mind this because it means I can skip IM3 when watching the films in order, but it's definitely a wasted opportunity. I guess we'll just have to wait a few more months to see which one of us is right.

You're right about people not expecting an Iron Man 4. That probably went a long way to diffusing anyone who really, really wanted it to be in Phase 3. But still, who are those people? Even in wishlists for Phase 4, I haven't seen people getting excited for Iron Man 4.

I disagree that no modern trilogy is like Star Wars or Indiana Jones. I would say Lord of the Rings is at least on the level of Star Wars and that The Hunger Games is on the level of Indiana Jones (although HG is going to be four films for some reason.)

Those trilogies are based on books, however, and filmed with the intentions of being a trilogy.

A better comparison would be Toy Story. Pixar was launched with Toy Story, MCU was launched with Iron Man. They both completed trilogies of their first films while also making a wide variety of other films. I would say Iron Man is on the level of Toy Story, but Toy Story 3 is miles and miles beyond Iron Man 3.

You're wrong about the end of IM3. It wasn't about Tony retiring or 'getting over' Iron Man or anything like that. The final line is 'I am Iron Man', that's pretty definitive as a statement. The arc of IM3 was about Tony coming to grips with a universe much larger than him and finding the strength to shrug off the limitations he had essentially set himself by retreating into the Iron Man suits and the persona they represent.

I'd argue that the obvious and far more interesting link to AoU is how IM3 introduces the concept of the Iron Legion and the idea that Tony may begin to outsource peace keeping to the Legion instead of doing it all himself. The implications of this for Age of Ultron are self evident. IM3 and TWS look to be, by far, the most important films feeding into AoU. Certainly more so than TDW or GOTG.

Finally, I'd agree that the 'Iron Man trilogy' is far less effective than it could have been, but, that is largely due to Iron Man 2 being little more than a rushed production with no real idea what it wanted to be (other than an Avengers tease). A fan trilogy of IM, Avengers and IM3 would be pretty great, however.

 

[Decepticonus]

Marvel is doing the right thing putting Iron Man on the shelf for a while. He is their most popular character, he's had three good movies, but now for an extended while he's only going to be a supporting character in other movies, same With Batman for WB/DC.

Will Fox get the same idea about putting Wolverine on the shelf for a while and tell movies about Rogue, Dazzler, and Cyclops?

No, they won't.

Who the hell are those characters? I only know of Wolverine. (sarcasm)

 

[The Endless]

A film doesn't make over a billion dollars if it isn't liked by the audience. A film simply cannot make a billion dollars without repeat viewings. Simple as.

And i don't understand why some are still confused by the ending of IM3. Tony Stark doesn't quit as Iron Man. He doesn't "get over" being Iron Man. He finally realizes that HE is Iron Man... with or without the suit.

This is what the film addresses. Tony is insecure after the events of Avengers (and i'd imagine Steve Rogers scathing words about him being nothing but a man an iron suit). The film then SHOWS Tony as an action hero without his armour for 80% of the movie. It was very deliberate by Black to show Tony getting his ass kicked most of the time. He's portraying him like John McClane in a way. He is only human. He will get his ass kicked. But his ingenuity and sometimes blind luck will get him through.

It's a fantastic character arc in my view. And the plot is structured in a totally different way to any superhero movie ever. It's all tangents that seem irreverent but eventually form a story, instead of deliberate formulas and A to B to C to D structures. And the twist isn't just a cheap trick that made no sense or came out of nowhere. All great twists have things littered throughout the film that you can catch on repeat viewings. IM3 did the same.

As for the tone and plot holes? What plot holes? I literally can't think of one moment that can be deemed a plot hole. Tone? The film is consistent in it's inconsistency. It doesn't have a set tone and it doesn't intend to. There is an unpredictability throughout the whole film and that is very refreshing for modern blockbusters. IM3 takes the superhero/blockbuster formula and takes a giant dump on it. Yet the people complaining about these films feeling "samey" are the first ones to complain? Strange.

 

[starscream22]

Sony hasn't had a 'winning season' since 2004. That's almost as bad as the Oakland Raiders. You don't go that long without winning unless management is abysmal. It isn't a fluke.

Yeah and Fox had to erase most of their continuity to be relevant which says a lot.

 

[harryoscop]

I just want new younger actors to play Cyclops, Storm, Jean, Nightcrawler Iceman.
I'd totally be on board with Apocalypse if they recasted.

 

[starscream22]

Marvel is doing the right thing putting Iron Man on the shelf for a while. He is their most popular character, he's had three good movies, but now for an extended while he's only going to be a supporting character in other movies, same With Batman for WB/DC.

Will Fox get the same idea about putting Wolverine on the shelf for a while and tell movies about Rogue, Dazzler, and Cyclops?

No, they won't.

Getting Fox to invest in a new X-character is like pulling teeth which is why its ridiculous seeing so many people jump to Fox's defense. Singer did not erase Fox's poor practices when logan went back in time....

- They had 9 years to get another Daredevil off the ground and miss the deadline.

- It took 8 years to do another F4 film.

- 7 years for a Deadpool film.

- The Silver Surfer is in purgatory.

- And Despite the musings by Millar and Kinberg a XM/FF crossover can NOT be done without Marvels consent. So charge them for talking out of their @sses.

Lord knows when you'll get a Gambit or X-Force film, yet these same people are reluctant of Marvel getting this franchise back for fear it will "Take too long to reboot it and make spinoffs"???

SMDH......REVERT BACK TO MARVEL OR SHUT UP!!!