If you Don't like the movie - POST HERE

[danoyse]

The only thing that worries me about Spiderman 3 at all is that it will probably scare the crap out of my friend's 3-year-old. I even emailed a screenshot of Venom to her saying "Are you sure?" She agrees with me, but her husband insists he can take it. So she said it will be his job to stay up with him when he won't go to sleep afterwards.

I love the Spiderman movies, they've been a lot of fun so far. Plus I work in NYC (right near the library where Uncle Ben was killed), so it's fun to see a hometown superhero. I saw the first movie in this huge, sold out theater in Times Square and the crowd was so crazy. Keep in mind it was about 8 months after 9/11, and this was the first superhero movie out...and at the when they were on the bridge tossing stuff at the Goblin and yelling "You mess with one of us, you mess with ALL of us!" it just had this great reaction, as well as the last shot on the Empire State Building. It's like everyone had forgotten how fun these movies were.

I've stayed spoiler-free so far, so that's got me even more excited to just go on opening night...and again, X3 doesn't make any sort of difference here. I just want all of the movies to be good.

 

[danoyse]

In what sense was X3 a big hit considering it's 210million budget and 234million domestic gross? The lion's share of the worldwide gross was collected by foreign studios so in reality Fox made 20 to 30 million dollars off a 210million dollar investment.

Does this really need to be explained again?

Hate the movie all you want, but your math on this is totally flawed, as we've pointed out to you time and time again.

 

[Hugh'sMrs]

I wish I was spoiler free for Spiderman 3 but I have correspondence from 'Team Spidey' dated September 2004 that divulged the inclusion of Venom and Gwen Stacy. There's also a suggestion for who should be killed off.

 

[Hugh'sMrs]

Does this really need to be explained again?

Hate the movie all you want, but your math on this is totally flawed, as we've pointed out to you time and time again.

His math isn't flawed. It's your refusal to grasp the concept of the distribution breakdown formula that's the problem.

 

[gambitfire]

BOO WII!

The only "Wii" I'll be yelling out about is when I get my PlayStation 3, "WHEEE!"

I'm sorry what?

I didn't catch that i was to busy having fun with the Wii!!





t:

 

[danoyse]

His math isn't flawed. It's your refusal to grasp the concept of the distribution breakdown formula that's the problem.

Trust me, I understand it better than you think.

We're not trying to dispute it's box office gross, or the 2nd weekend drop. It's him pulling exact figures off Box Office Mojo budget estimates that will always be flawed.

 

[Theweepeople]

Does this really need to be explained again?

Hate the movie all you want, but your math on this is totally flawed, as we've pointed out to you time and time again.

You can't explain something again if it wasn't properly explained before. I've stopped counting how many times you've said my numbers are flawed without using math to explain your weak accusations.

 

[danoyse]

You can't explain something again if it wasn't properly explained before. I've stopped counting how many times you've said my numbers are flawed without using math to explain your weak accusations.

Does this go back to the thread where you told everyone that studios are required by law to let their stockholders what their movie budgets are?

I can't use exact math...because we don't have exact numbers. Actual budget figures are one of the best kept secrets in the business. Any number you get off of BOM or any other site is an estimate, so you can't say exactly what a studio profited off of without knowing the exact budget, what their projections for the movie were, how all of the other revenue streams (DVD, TV, etc.) figure into the final gross, what the actual profit breakdown was, etc.

And about projections: I was reading about the ongoing court case that Clive Cussler has regarding the profits of the movie Sahara. The studio claims they budgeted what the profits of the movie would be through 2010, I believe (read the article at work a few weeks ago), which would include TV and DVD revenues, not just the box office gross.

Do you know what year Fox projections were figured into? It doesn't even make it's cable TV premiere until next week.

Regarding worldwide gross, Fox distributed X3 in the biggest overseas market, the UK, as well as most of the big european markets (Germany, Italy, France), South America (Brazil, Argentina), Australia. I believe Sony distributed the movie in Japan. And foreign distributors still have to pay Fox for the distribution rights.

We simply don't have enough information to know exactly what who made what off of X3. Did they screw it up and not make what they should off of it? Probably. The 2nd weekend in the US is enough to show that. But you just can't take numbers off BOM and figure out what final profits were from there.

 

[Theweepeople]

I agree with Nell, I think the two movies were popcorn and the second one was almost exactly the same story of the first one, only with a new villain.

That's interesting because some of the elements of X3's story were very similar to X2. The mutant cure plot was the main focus of X3's storyline and a rehash of X2's plot element of Strker finding a way to get rid of mutants. Unfortunately, the Jean Grey/Phoenix storyline was poorly developed and took a backseat to the mutant cure one.

I´ll watch the third just for kicks, but no matter how good (or bad) it is I´ll always think of the X movies as a much better franchise.

You can't mean better in terms of quality. The spiderman franchise was meant to be a franchise right from the beginning and none of the spidey films went through the production messes that the X-Men films experienced. Fox cut Singer's budget in X1 and moved up the release date by at least 3 months to make the movie fail. Fox cut Singer's budget in X2 thereby forcing him to rewrite the script. I don't need to say anything about how screwed up X3's production history was. Now let's compare the quality of the budgets:t:


Spider-man 1(139mil) X1(75mil)
Spider-man 2(200mil) X2(110mil)
Spider-man 3(>250mil) X3(210mil)

Now let's compare the running times. Since the X-Men films featured multiple characters you'd think the films would be significantly longer for the sake of quality character development.

Spider-man 1(2 hours 1min.) X1(1 hour 44 minutes) Spider-man 2(2 hours 7 minutes) X2( 2 hours 14 minutes)
Spider-man 3(2 hours 20minutes) X3(1 hour 44 minutes)

 

[LastSunrise1981]

That's interesting because some of the elements of X3's story were very similar to X2. The mutant cure plot was the main focus of X3's storyline and a rehash of X2's plot element of Strker finding a way to get rid of mutants. Unfortunately, the Jean Grey/Phoenix storyline was poorly developed and took a backseat to the mutant cure one.



You can't mean better in terms of quality. The spiderman franchise was meant to be a franchise right from the beginning and none of the spidey films went through the production messes that the X-Men films experienced. Fox cut Singer's budget in X1 and moved up the release date by at least 3 months to make the movie fail. Fox cut Singer's budget in X2 thereby forcing him to rewrite the script. I don't need to say anything about how screwed up X3's production history was. Now let's compare the quality of the budgets:t:


Spider-man 1(139mil) X1(75mil)
Spider-man 2(200mil) X2(110mil)
Spider-man 3(>250mil) X3(210mil)

Now let's compare the running times. Since the X-Men films featured multiple characters you'd think the films would be significantly longer for the sake of quality character development.

Spider-man 1(2 hours 1min.) X1(1 hour 44 minutes) Spider-man 2(2 hours 7 minutes) X2( 2 hours 14 minutes)
Spider-man 3(2 hours 20minutes) X3(1 hour 44 minutes)

Ouch, and ouch. You keep on owning them in the best possible way Wee, which is with facts that have been backed up and are intelligent.

Here's what I think, and maybe it's just me, in my opinion, I feel that a lot of those who love X3 want to downgrade the success of films like a Batman Begins, POTC, Spider-Man, or even Lord of the Rings for instance because they feel as though nothing can be better than X3. In their minds they truly feel as if the franchise is a masterpiece.

No franchise has been a masterpiece except for Lord of the Rings, original Star Wars, and Indiana Jones. Other than that there are very few franchises that have topped those particular films. Now, with that being said, how can X-Men be the better franchise? If you meant in terms of storylines? Yes, you would be correct if you mention the first two films. Now if X3 had a better storyline, better writers, Singer or a better director bringing it to life, and so forth then maybe you could say they're a better franchise.

But to say that X-Men is a much better franchise over Spider-Man? I know it's an opinion and everything, but that's REALLY pushing it. Spider-Man has had none of the production messes, politics, greed, and studio suits sticking their noses in the creative process while the films quality itself suffers.

From the sounds of thing Spider-Man 3 is everything X3 SHOULD'VE been, which is a great closer to a trilogy and it may've reached the peak of its potential. Granted there are some things that I'm not happy about with Spider-Man 3. I don't like the forced inclusion of Venom, I don't like Gwen Stacey being introduced, and I don't like that they took the sympathetic villain story again with Sandman. I want a Spider-Man film where the villain is just evil, ruthless, and doesn't have any sympathetic features that allows him to connect with the audience.

So in the end which has had the better production love? Spider-Man obviously. However, the credit goes to Sony for not filming the James Cameron script(as a great of a director as he is, the story he crafted was just like the Superman script Jon Peters and Ratner okayed), for Raimi for sticking true to the theme and certain character plots, and for Sony who didn't rush things and allowed Raimi to do a great directing job. It's not to say Sony is perfect, it's not to say WB is perfect, and it's not to say that Disney is perfect. All we're saying is certain films have had studios who knew better than to interfere with the creative process.

The same cannot be said for X-Men unfortunately.

 

[danoyse]

Well i'm at work in my school Library, but i just got a Wii and i can't put that thing down!!

it's freaking WIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I want a WI!!!! (although it's probably not the best thing to have right now since I have a strained ligament in my heel )

But I still want one!!

 

[Hugh'sMrs]

The only real potential problem Sony faced was the situation with getting Tobey back for #2 which they handled quickly and effectively without too much negative publicity. Fox did not have the same luck with X3.

 

[Theweepeople]

Ouch, and ouch. You keep on owning them in the best possible way Wee, which is with facts that have been backed up and are intelligent.

I've been doing this since last June.t:

Here's what I think, and maybe it's just me, in my opinion, I feel that a lot of those who love X3 want to downgrade the success of films like a Batman Begins, POTC, Spider-Man, or even Lord of the Rings for instance because they feel as though nothing can be better than X3. In their minds they truly feel as if the franchise is a masterpiece.

Interesting theory. I also considered this and it makes perfect sense. Some people who love this film have defended Fox, Ratner Kinberg, and Penn, and Avi. They've ignored all the boneheaded things Fox done with X-Men right from the beginning and have continued to be confrontational towards those who hate this film for almost a year. What ever happened to the "If you like the movie post here thread?" You would think that the people who love this film would be more productive in expressing their love for X3 by keeping that thread alive.

However, the credit goes to Sony for not filming the James Cameron script(as a great of a director as he is, the story he crafted was just like the Superman script Jon Peters and Ratner okayed),

You're telling me Cameron's script was as bad as Jon Peter and Ratner's script?

 

[Theweepeople]

Does this go back to the thread where you told everyone that studios are required by law to let their stockholders what their movie budgets are?

You misquoted me. I never said Studios are required by law to let their stockholders know exactly what their movie budgets are. However, they must at least be required to give an estimate of their budgets. If this wasn't the case then movie companies would keep this information secret and internet websites like boxofficemojo wouldn't exist.

I can't use exact math...because we don't have exact numbers. Actual budget figures are one of the best kept secrets in the business. Any number you get off of BOM or any other site is an estimate, so you can't say exactly what a studio profited off of without knowing the exact budget, what their projections for the movie were, how all of the other revenue streams (DVD, TV, etc.) figure into the final gross, what the actual profit breakdown was, etc.

I never asked you to use exact math because I've known since last June that my numbers are estimates. However, if you constantly claim that I'm using fuzzy math the least you could do is explain how my math is fuzzy. Furthermore, with an estimated budget you can make estimates about their projections and how other revenue streams figure into the final gross. Finally, regardless of how much money Fox makes from other revenue streams this movie is still a big disappointment due to it's domestic profit percentage. Studios don't make these big budget films for the sole purpose of making money off DVD and TV inspite of weak domestic profit percentages. If that was true than we would have experienced multiple sequels of Lost in Space, Van Helsing, Star Ship Troopers, GINO, League of Extra., Constantine, Spawn, Elektra, Daredevil, Men in Black, and The Punisher by now.

Do you know what year Fox projections were figured into? It doesn't even make it's cable TV premiere until next week.

I don't know this but, what I do know is that Fox didn't plan on spending an extra 60million dollars to produce this film after Matthew Vaughn left. Laura Donner said the budget was set at 150million and Vaughn's
departure caused the budget to spiral out of control so there's no way Fox could make what they originally projected.

 

[gambitfire]

I want a WI!!!! (although it's probably not the best thing to have right now since I have a strained ligament in my heel )

But I still want one!!

I'm sorry hope you get better soon.

I'd be happy to share my Wii..........if you lived near me and i wasn't glued to Twilight princess!

 

[Theweepeople]

Now I want to talk about some more things in X3 that irritated me. I still think that Magneto's reaction to Mystique getting cured was bs. The explanation I've heard is this was an example of Magneto's extreme hatred towards humans. Well if that's the case then why does Magneto let Mystique live. In all three movies he showed little to no value towards human live and keeping Mystique alive opened up the posibility of her revealing the location of his base to the government. Furthermore, what was the significance of Mystique telling the government about the location of Magneto's base when he and his army would expect her betrayal and be forced to relocate. Is there any reason for me to believe that Mystique and Magneto didn't act like complete morons in this film?

 

[Theweepeople]

Now I want to talk about some more things in X3 that irritated me. I still think that Magneto's reaction to Mystique getting cured was bs. The explanation I've heard is this was an example of Magneto's extreme hatred towards humans. Well if that's the case then why does Magneto let Mystique live. In all three movies he showed little to no value towards human live and keeping Mystique alive opened up the posibility of her revealing the location of his base to the government. Furthermore, what was the significance of Mystique telling the government about the location of Magneto's base when he and his army would expect her betrayal and be forced to relocate. Is there any reason for me to believe that Mystique and Magneto didn't act like complete morons in this film?

 

[danoyse]

You misquoted me. I never said Studios are required by law to let their stockholders know exactly what their movie budgets are.

You want a link? Try here: http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?p=11363661#post11363661

And I quote:

Furthermore, all movie companies are required by law to give an accurate estimate of their movie budgets for all people who want to invest in the stock market.

I never asked you to use exact math because I've known since last June that my numbers are estimates. However, if you constantly claim that I'm using fuzzy math the least you could do is explain how my math is fuzzy.

Your actual mathmatical process isn't fuzzy. The numbers you are using are.

Furthermore, with an estimated budget you can make estimates about their projections and how other revenue streams figure into the final gross.

No you can't. How does that break down who gets what as far as profit? How far those projections are spread out to? How do we know how well the TV revenue is going to be when it doesn't start airing on cable until next week?

Finally, regardless of how much money Fox makes from other revenue streams this movie is still a big disappointment due to it's domestic profit percentage. Studios don't make these big budget films for the sole purpose of making money off DVD and TV inspite of weak domestic profit percentages.

Which is true of most of the big-budget studio tentpoles, which is why the rely so much on all of the revenue streams including worldwide gross, DVD, TV, and all of those other revenue streams.

If that was true than we would have experienced multiple sequels of Lost in Space, Van Helsing, Star Ship Troopers, GINO, League of Extra., Constantine, Spawn, Elektra, Daredevil, Men in Black, and The Punisher by now.

There are so many factors that figure in to why certain sequels don't get made...not just whatever you've calculated off BOM.

I don't know this but, what I do know is that Fox didn't plan on spending an extra 60million dollars to produce this film after Matthew Vaughn left. Laura Donner said the budget was set at 150million and Vaughn's
departure caused the budget to spiral out of control so there's no way Fox could make what they originally projected.

Which is why they brought Ratner in to take over, rather than scrap the whole film and start over, and avoid a situation like the aborted Superman projects. Continuing from that point only kept the budget from spiraling even more out of control.

Their projections were more likely based on what X2 had made, and they went forward based on that.

 

[danoyse]

I'm sorry hope you get better soon.

I'd be happy to share my Wii..........if you lived near me and i wasn't glued to Twilight princess!

Aw, thank you. I'd let you borrow my Nintendo DS. t:

 

[Loganbabe]

Ouch, and ouch. You keep on owning them in the best possible way Wee, which is with facts that have been backed up and are intelligent.

Yeah, I´m so afraid of intelligent facts...

And since when budget and running time became synonymous to quality? I love independent, small movies, so I totally disagree with that notion. I do agree, though, that in X3, and even X1, budget and running time were a problem, but not in X2. Knowing that a certain movie had a 500 million budget is certainly impressive, but it won´t make me love that movie more. Actually, I couldn´t care less. The X-franchise impressed me in a way that the Spidey movies never did, no matter how much they cost and how much they made. It´s simply a matter of taste.

My favorite movie of 2006 cost 35 million, had a 90 min running time and was a comercial flop. It is called "The Fountain". I would certainly be happy if it had made more money, but even the fact it was a flop couldn´t take away from its greatness to me.

 

[Theweepeople]

You want a link? Try here: http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?p=11363661#post11363661

And I quote:

Thanks for proving my point. Notice the word estimate in regards to budget.

Your actual mathmatical process isn't fuzzy. The numbers you are using are.

I never said these numbers were 100% accurate. That's why I have used the word ESTIMATE numerous times in regards to how I feel about these boxoffice numbers.

No you can't. How does that break down who gets what as far as profit? How far those projections are spread out to? How do we know how well the TV revenue is going to be when it doesn't start airing on cable until next week?

So even if I did hours of research for a statistical analysis of the business aspect of Hollywood films made in the past 30 years there's no way I could come up with estimates of these profits and projections? Yeah right.

Which is true of most of the big-budget studio tentpoles, which is why the rely so much on all of the revenue streams including worldwide gross, DVD, TV, and all of those other revenue streams..

I've addressed the worldwide gross in many of my arguments. The amount of money most studios make from these grosses is not that lucrative since the foreign companies distruting these movies are taking a large percentage of the profit. Making money off of DVD and tv is what all companies should expect when handling a franchise with half a billion dollar potential. No surprises there.

There are so many factors that figure in to why certain sequels don't get made...not just whatever you've calculated off BOM.

Well all those movies had 3 obvious things in common that I won't bother wasting my time telling you. If your incapable of seeing an obvious trend as to why sequels weren't immediately greenlighted then so be it.

Which is why they brought Ratner in to take over, rather than scrap the whole film and start over, and avoid a situation like the aborted Superman projects. Continuing from that point only kept the budget from spiraling even more out of control.

I know why Fox did this but, they could have gone about it differently. They could have hired a better director and given him a few more months to complete the film. Based on what I've seen Ratner may be partially responsible for the bloated budget for wasting time on having over 30 takes to film each scene. I still haven't heard of any other DVD that has as many deleted scenes as X3.

Their projections were more likely based on what X2 had made, and they went forward based on that.

That only confirms there's no way they made the same profit considering the budget increased by 100 and the domestic profit percentage decreased by more than 90%.

 

[Hugh'sMrs]

Unless any of you actually work for a studio or at least have been well coached by someone who does, you aren't in any position to state facts as absolutes about their finances or politics.

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

Ouch, and ouch. You keep on owning them in the best possible way Wee, which is with facts that have been backed up and are intelligent.

I have never seen so much self righteousness in all of my life.

But anyways, with this (and whee's reply) thank you for proving to me that you nor him are accepting of any opinions. To you guys, it's your way, and that is it. Everybody else is wrong, only you 2 are right.

You both have now proven to me that any questionable actions I have taken towards the 2 of you in recent months have been totally justified, because neither of you has an ounce of tolerance or open mindedness in your body. It's all about spreading your opinions as facts, and making sure that your negative opinions of the film dominate this place so that positive opinion is in the minority.

Here's what I think, and maybe it's just me, in my opinion, I feel that a lot of those who love X3 want to downgrade the success of films like a Batman Begins, POTC, Spider-Man, or even Lord of the Rings for instance because they feel as though nothing can be better than X3. In their minds they truly feel as if the franchise is a masterpiece.

You are the master of assumptions. I have never seen a post from you that wasn't condescending towards those who disagree with you. All you do is make blind assumptions about people who feel differently than you, because you cannot accept the fact that not everyone feels the same way that you do. You don't have any open mindedness in you at all, and spare me the lectures about how your girlfriend loves X-Men: The Last Stand and you don't act like this towards her, because to me, it's just a bunch of words for you to try to jutify your intolerance on this board. You have never shown a single ounce of tolerance towards anyone on this board, and you can talk all you want about your girlfriend and friends that love the movie, but actions speak louder than words.

How exactly can one downgrade "success". Success, in financial terms, is indisputable. A film was either a success or it wasn't. X-Men: The Last Stand was a success. The Spiderman films were successes (and 3 will continue that trend), Batman Begins; a success. Lord of the Rings; the ultimate success.

Now for your completely bull**** assumptions;

I am a much bigger fan of X-Men than I am of Lord of the Rings. Guess which trilogy of movies I prefer? Because it's NOT X-Men.

Lord of the Rings is the better film trilogy on every single level imaginable. As far as I am concerned, those are the best movies ever made. They offer every single possible trait imaginable in a film. There is emotion, action, epic, romance, humor, tragedy, EVERYTHING.

Second of all, I can have whatever opinions that I want regarding X-Men vs. Spiderman and Batman. I believe the X-Men films are better, both in personal preference, and of quality. I think that Batman Begins is a highly over-rated film, and except for certain spots, is rather boring. I find the Spiderman films to be rather well done, but lacking of any true substance, and is just a generic superhero story told rather well.

And **** you if you can't accept that.

No franchise has been a masterpiece except for Lord of the Rings, original Star Wars, and Indiana Jones. Other than that there are very few franchises that have topped those particular films. Now, with that being said, how can X-Men be the better franchise? If you meant in terms of storylines? Yes, you would be correct if you mention the first two films. Now if X3 had a better storyline, better writers, Singer or a better director bringing it to life, and so forth then maybe you could say they're a better franchise.

Okay, do you even form your own opinions, or do you just spout off what movie critics tell you to spout off?

You sound exactly like somebody I encountered on my old Bone Thugs-N-Harmony forum, who only called albums "classic" if they were widely considered as such by various Hip Hop publications; I.E. "Illmatic" by Nas, "All Eyez On Me" by 2Pac, "Reasonable Doubt" by Jay-Z... if anybody came along and didn't like one of those albums, he'd criticize their opinions and call them wrong, and unknowledgable to Hip Hop music.

Sounds a lot like you with your super hero movie ramblings and about how great certain movies are, how ****ty others are, and how anyone who likes the ****ty movies must be willing to accept mediocracy and have lower standards, and if they don't like the good ones they are trying to downplay the success of said movies because they are mindless defenders who can't accept anything other than X-Men: The Last Stand.

But to say that X-Men is a much better franchise over Spider-Man? I know it's an opinion and everything, but that's REALLY pushing it. Spider-Man has had none of the production messes, politics, greed, and studio suits sticking their noses in the creative process while the films quality itself suffers.

I don't care about politics and production woes, I care about the finished product.

And the finished product to me tells me that the X-Men films are of higher quality than the Spiderman films. I don't judge movies based on studio politics, I judge movies based on what I see on the screen. Apparently that little notion of forming opinions is lost on you, since your entire arguement for Spiderman being better is the behind the scenes politics, and has nothing to do with what you see on the screen.

From the sounds of thing Spider-Man 3 is everything X3 SHOULD'VE been, which is a great closer to a trilogy and it may've reached the peak of its potential. Granted there are some things that I'm not happy about with Spider-Man 3. I don't like the forced inclusion of Venom, I don't like Gwen Stacey being introduced, and I don't like that they took the sympathetic villain story again with Sandman. I want a Spider-Man film where the villain is just evil, ruthless, and doesn't have any sympathetic features that allows him to connect with the audience.

And you call us X3 lovers mindless?!

I'm sorry, but I much prefer my villians to have reasonable motives behind them that we can understand, not just the mindless "I'm evil, you're good" conflicts that make up the Spiderman films and make them... MINDLESS.

God forbid you actually have to think in a movie, and have characters with actual complexes to them like real humans do.

So in the end which has had the better production love? Spider-Man obviously. However, the credit goes to Sony for not filming the James Cameron script(as a great of a director as he is, the story he crafted was just like the Superman script Jon Peters and Ratner okayed), for Raimi for sticking true to the theme and certain character plots, and for Sony who didn't rush things and allowed Raimi to do a great directing job. It's not to say Sony is perfect, it's not to say WB is perfect, and it's not to say that Disney is perfect. All we're saying is certain films have had studios who knew better than to interfere with the creative process.

Those studios have plenty of bastardized movies, and Fox has many artistic films of very high calibur, so the arguement is null and void.

The same cannot be said for X-Men unfortunately.

Okay...

 

[LastSunrise1981]

I have never seen so much self righteousness in all of my life.

But anyways, with this (and whee's reply) thank you for proving to me that you nor him are accepting of any opinions. To you guys, it's your way, and that is it. Everybody else is wrong, only you 2 are right.

You both have now proven to me that any questionable actions I have taken towards the 2 of you in recent months have been totally justified, because neither of you has an ounce of tolerance or open mindedness in your body. It's all about spreading your opinions as facts, and making sure that your negative opinions of the film dominate this place so that positive opinion is in the minority.



You are the master of assumptions. I have never seen a post from you that wasn't condescending towards those who disagree with you. All you do is make blind assumptions about people who feel differently than you, because you cannot accept the fact that not everyone feels the same way that you do. You don't have any open mindedness in you at all, and spare me the lectures about how your girlfriend loves X-Men: The Last Stand and you don't act like this towards her, because to me, it's just a bunch of words for you to try to jutify your intolerance on this board. You have never shown a single ounce of tolerance towards anyone on this board, and you can talk all you want about your girlfriend and friends that love the movie, but actions speak louder than words.

How exactly can one downgrade "success". Success, in financial terms, is indisputable. A film was either a success or it wasn't. X-Men: The Last Stand was a success. The Spiderman films were successes (and 3 will continue that trend), Batman Begins; a success. Lord of the Rings; the ultimate success.

Now for your completely bull**** assumptions;

I am a much bigger fan of X-Men than I am of Lord of the Rings. Guess which trilogy of movies I prefer? Because it's NOT X-Men.

Lord of the Rings is the better film trilogy on every single level imaginable. As far as I am concerned, those are the best movies ever made. They offer every single possible trait imaginable in a film. There is emotion, action, epic, romance, humor, tragedy, EVERYTHING.

Second of all, I can have whatever opinions that I want regarding X-Men vs. Spiderman and Batman. I believe the X-Men films are better, both in personal preference, and of quality. I think that Batman Begins is a highly over-rated film, and except for certain spots, is rather boring. I find the Spiderman films to be rather well done, but lacking of any true substance, and is just a generic superhero story told rather well.

And **** you if you can't accept that.



Okay, do you even form your own opinions, or do you just spout off what movie critics tell you to spout off?

You sound exactly like somebody I encountered on my old Bone Thugs-N-Harmony forum, who only called albums "classic" if they were widely considered as such by various Hip Hop publications; I.E. "Illmatic" by Nas, "All Eyez On Me" by 2Pac, "Reasonable Doubt" by Jay-Z... if anybody came along and didn't like one of those albums, he'd criticize their opinions and call them wrong, and unknowledgable to Hip Hop music.

Sounds a lot like you with your super hero movie ramblings and about how great certain movies are, how ****ty others are, and how anyone who likes the ****ty movies must be willing to accept mediocracy and have lower standards, and if they don't like the good ones they are trying to downplay the success of said movies because they are mindless defenders who can't accept anything other than X-Men: The Last Stand.



I don't care about politics and production woes, I care about the finished product.

And the finished product to me tells me that the X-Men films are of higher quality than the Spiderman films. I don't judge movies based on studio politics, I judge movies based on what I see on the screen. Apparently that little notion of forming opinions is lost on you, since your entire arguement for Spiderman being better is the behind the scenes politics, and has nothing to do with what you see on the screen.



And you call us X3 lovers mindless?!

I'm sorry, but I much prefer my villians to have reasonable motives behind them that we can understand, not just the mindless "I'm evil, you're good" conflicts that make up the Spiderman films and make them... MINDLESS.

God forbid you actually have to think in a movie, and have characters with actual complexes to them like real humans do.



Those studios have plenty of bastardized movies, and Fox has many artistic films of very high calibur, so the arguement is null and void.



Okay...

Hahaha, first and foremost, Fox has had plenty of bastardized movies under their belt and your response shows how you're biased towards them. Second of all, I do not appreciate you insulting my girlfriend at all. Yes, my girlfriend loves the movie, so does her friends, so does her parents, and so do other friends who aren't confrontational with their opinions and accept mine as I accept their views.

Just because I've been rude on here doesn't mean I'm rude like this in real life. I've only been rude to YOU, Logan babe, and a host of others because you've been mean spirited, vicious, and downright rude to those who didn't agree with your views. Spare me the lecture of your victim playing card because you've said some pretty nasty things to me, wee, and any other who have disagreed with you.

I haven't resorted to profanity towards you. So I take it that my post struck a nerve with you, so I'm going to be nice to you.

You have your opinion about Spider-Man. It's true the overall product is all that matters, however, politics behind the scenes can affect the general quality that was originally intended for the film and that's what you so cleverly ignore. Did I say you're willing to accept mediocrity? Yes, I did. Do I still believe it? Not so much now, but to some extent I feel anyone who LOVES the comics, understands the comics, and just blindly defends the film and insults anyone who has a different opinion to me is willing to accept mediocrity.

You're not a loyalist, a loser, an idiot, or insane. I just believe that you have a bias that shows you'll defend Fox, Ratner, Penn, and Kinberg despite the boneheaded decisions they made that prevented the film from being an epic masterpiece. Again, you love the movie, that's great and I'm glad you enjoyed it.

As for the villain situation? Who said I didn't like to think? I enjoy films like Schindlers List, Starman, Taxi Driver, 1941, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, The Departed, Blood Diamond, X1/X2, Batman Begins, Edward Scissorhands, and so forth. The list goes on with my love of films. Villains who are evil for the sake of being evil have reasonable motives. To me, a villain who has human qualities takes away the mystery. I'm not speaking about Magneto or any other X-Men villain. They tend to have a human quality that makes the reader or the viewer connect with them on an emotional level.

Spider-Man villains in terms of the movies have too much humanity. I wanted Doc Ock to be the vicious genius scientist he is in the comics, not some overly sympathetic scientist that was portrayed in the movie. Green Goblin they did pretty damn good, so no issues with that. But Venom, Sandman, Doc Ock, and etc are too sympathetic and don't have that ruthlessness.

As I said, God forbid we have a villain that's just evil. For example, I'm AGAINST Rob Zombie giving Michael Myers any kind of backstory. Why? Because it takes away the imagination and we're left feeling sorry for him instead of just being left with "The kid was just evil from the beginning." Same issue with Hannibal Lector. Some things are best left as a mystery and don't need any form of explanation. Stories often purposefully leave an ambigious ending in order to allow the reader/viewer to form his or own conclusion.

Just because I want villains who are evil for the sake of being evil doesn't mean I'm mindless in any fashion. But hey, believe what you want.

Last time I checked I'm not trolling in a forum for those who love the film. When you made your positive thread I stayed out of it, nor did I call for anyone to ruin it. I felt it was wrong that the mods closed it and that people went to troll in it for the sake of trolling. But you also created it for the sake of trolling as well, so in a sense, it goes both ways and both parties were in the wrong in that department.

 

[gambitfire]

Why must there be 2 parties, Why can't we have one giant party with different views!?

......