Fox vs. Sony - who is worse?

[Filmfreak]

It's true he was an alien in early drafts and yet I remember reading a Singer interview where he supposedly debanked this.

People were concerned we were making Apocalypse an alien. It’s odd. I don’t know where that came from.

 

[Majik1387]

Well, Singer can't really say "Yeah, Kinberg had this dumb idea to make Apocalypse an alien; I nixed that right away."

 

[Filmfreak]

I mean he could at least say it was just an idea amongst countless others that ended up not using but I guess that's fair since they've been getting a lot of unfair backlash from fans anyways. I'm just glad they didn't go for it.

 

[Flint Marko]

Well, Singer can't really say "Yeah, Kinberg had this dumb idea to make Apocalypse an alien; I nixed that right away."

Uhhh well he could find a way to say "we tried to explore that creatively and ended up not working like we thought". That would have been perfectly acceptable, and arguably better than outright lying.

 

[Tech]

I like that Sony is at least willing to work with Marvel now. Fox's hostility isn't doing the franchises any good. The core X-men movies were good, but all these spin-offs can't really help franchise (except for Deadpool, but I don't think that's spin-off since he had his own series. I just think a Gambit and even Mystique film just stretching it).

 

[DACrowe]

Uhhh well he could find a way to say "we tried to explore that creatively and ended up not working like we thought". That would have been perfectly acceptable, and arguably better than outright lying.

And you would totally not be criticizing the unused and discarded idea if he had said that.

 

[Flint Marko]

And you would totally not be criticizing the unused and discarded idea if he had said that.

I'll be blunt, I think it's worth criticizing. But it goes both ways. Some folks would be vehemently defending the unused and discarded idea. It would probably muster as much of a defense as Domashev/Doom being a blogger.

 

[CyclopsWasRight]

I like that Sony is at least willing to work with Marvel now. Fox's hostility isn't doing the franchises any good. The core X-men movies were good, but all these spin-offs can't really help franchise (except for Deadpool, but I don't think that's spin-off since he had his own series. I just think a Gambit and even Mystique film just stretching it).

What hostility? All they've done is continue to make movies as usual.

 

[Flint Marko]

What hostility? All they've done is continue to make movies as usual.

Pettily turning down Marvel's deal and letting Daredevil revert in favor of holding onto two characters they'll never use certainly comes to mind.

 

[First Avenger]

What hostility? All they've done is continue to make movies as usual.

So Marvel are a bunch of bastards for not marketing F4 and X-men but Fox is alright for doing crappy rights grab? Ok then.

 

[TeeKay]

What hostility? All they've done is continue to make movies as usual.

Are you serious?

 

[Kermit_The_Frog]

So Marvel are a bunch of bastards for not marketing F4 and X-men but Fox is alright for doing crappy rights grab? Ok then.

They own the rights. Should they just not make movies at all then?

 

[First Avenger]

They own the rights. Should they just not make movies at all then?

Keep you updated on why they did the last F4 'movie' then come back.

 

[CyclopsWasRight]

They own the rights. Should they just not make movies at all then?

Exactly them making movies as usual is in no way them being hostile or spiteful.

Wanting them to deal with Marvel or sell is one thing but denouncing their choice not to is petty and pathetic.

 

[regnak]

They own the rights. Should they just not make movies at all then?

Well in this case no. There obligation to their stockholders is to make a good return on investment which means making profitable movies. This was a rushed ill conceived attempt to hold onto the rights of a franchise wherein the last installment made little if any profit. If Fox acted like a rational business they would not have made the movie.

 

[First Avenger]

Well in this case no. There obligation to their stockholders is to make a good return on investment which means making profitable movies. This was a rushed ill conceived attempt to hold onto the rights of a franchise wherein the last installment made little if any profit. If Fox acted like a rational business they would not have made the movie.

Thank you. They acted like idiots,that's the truth.

 

[CyclopsWasRight]

Well in this case no. There obligation to their stockholders is to make a good return on investment which means making profitable movies. This was a rushed ill conceived attempt to hold onto the rights of a franchise wherein the last installment made little if any profit. If Fox acted like a rational business they would not have made the movie.

It would've been more rational to devote more time and effort into making it as commercially viable and successful as possible rather than not keeping on top of things and leaving it solely to a relatively in-experienced director of giving up a valuable property

Their mistake was not in making the movie but in not being pro-active enough to ensure the best movie possible

 

[TeeKay]

Exactly them making movies as usual is in no way them being hostile or spiteful.

Wanting them to deal with Marvel or sell is one thing but denouncing their choice not to is petty and pathetic.

Then explain this?

A crewmember acknowledges that Trank bears much of the fault for the film's problems but also says the Fox studio should not escape blame. The movie was "ill-conceived, made for the wrong reasons and there was no vision behind the property," this person says. "Say what you will about Marvel but they have a vision."

As Fox hurried to put the project into production before rights to the material reverted to Marvel, the studio was scrambling with multiple rewrites and delays in starting the film. They "were afraid of losing the rights so they pressed forward and didn't surround [Trank] with help or fire him. They buried their heads in the sand." Fox declined to comment.

 

[regnak]

Actually it would've been more rational to devote more time and effort into making it as commercially viable and successful as possible rather than not keeping on top of things and leaving it solely to a relatively in-experienced director.

Their mistake was not in making the movie but in not being pro-active enough

They tried that last time and failed with ROTSS. They had to have had something better(as in a higher chance of being successful) to sink their money into. No making the movie was a bad idea.

 

[CyclopsWasRight]

They tried that last time and failed with ROTSS. They had to have had something better(as in a higher chance of being successful) to sink their money into. No making the movie was a bad idea.

They thought they did. They had faith in Trank to provide a better movie then late into the production it seemed that wasn't happening.

It was misplaced trust, an error on their part but that has no correlation on whether a F4 movie should or should not have been made in the first place.

Their goal with the reboot was to create a sustainable F4 franchise. They failed. But that doesn't mean they as a business shouldn't have tried.

The property holds value and in a current marketplace supporting the subject matter there was no reason not to try and kickstart a franchise.

Making a movie to start an ongoing franchise and failing is still a better business move than letting the property out of their hands for nothing.

In risk vs reward terms the latter would net them $0 whereas the former could lose them some money or gain them a lot down the road.

They lost money, not a ton due to conservative budgeting but still lost money, but if the gamble had paid off they'd have made a lot more than the $0 for not utilising the property at all.

In the end the risk of making the movie was more economically sound than not and losing the potential income from it.

 

[spider-neil]

So sad that Fox would rather run the property into ground rather than let Marvel get their hands on the rights. Marvel only have themselves to blame for selling the rights with no expiry date.

 

[TeeKay]

You're ignoring that they thought they did. They had faith in Trank to provide a better movie then late into the production it seemed that wasn't happening.

It was misplaced trust, an error on their part but that has no correlation on whether a F4 movie should or should not have been made in the first place.

Their goal with the reboot was to create a sustainable F4 franchise. They failed. But that doesn't mean they as a business shouldn't have tried.

The property holds value and in a current marketplace supporting the subject matter there was no reason not to try and kickstart a franchise

Oh please. Are you serious? You damn well know why this film was being made. Trying to suggest otherwise is being in denial. How you continue to defend this trainwreck and the people behind it baffles me.

 

[Flint Marko]

Their goal with the reboot was to create a sustainable F4 franchise. They failed. But that doesn't mean they as a business shouldn't have tried.

No, their goal was to produce a cheap rights grab ($80 million dollar budget, no-name cast, no name director) that would be released in theaters and allow them to hold onto the property for seven more years. Mission accomplished on that end. Creating a sustainable franchise would have just been the cherry on top.
Paul Dini went in to pitch an FF movie a few years ago, and commented on the "contempt" Fox had towards the property. They fundamentally do not understand what makes these characters work, and quite frankly, they don't care to.

Making a movie to start an ongoing franchise and failing is still a better business move than letting the property out of their hands for nothing.

So I guess letting their Daredevil movie (which was almost in pre-production) go to waste and having the rights revert was not a good business decision? Lmao. Here you are denying that there is any hostility or pettiness from Fox's end, but you flat out state right here that this was a poor business decision. I'm sure you'll continue to ignore this, but it's worth pointing out.

 

[CyclopsWasRight]

So sad that Fox would rather run the property into ground.

I sincerely doubt they intended that. No business intentionally makes a bad product

Marvel only have themselves to blame for selling the rights with no expiry date.

Precisely

 

[TeeKay]

Making a movie to start an ongoing franchise and failing is still a better business move than letting the property out of their hands for nothing.

In risk vs reward terms the latter would net them $0 whereas the former could lose them some money or gain them a lot down the road.

They lost money, not a ton due to conservative budgeting but still lost money, but if the gamble had paid off they'd have made a lot more than the $0 for not utilising the property at all.

In the end the risk of making the movie was more economically sound than not and losing the property

This whole post is Sig worthy. Holy ****!