Is FOX good for anything X-Men? I for one think not

[gambitfire]

I have a plead to Marvel So Avi if you are listening-

FOX isn't a good company to begin with (i mean good in the sense of evil ) But then again alot of studios arn't.

But seriously how good has FOX Been to the X-Men.

Let's start from the most known factor, FOX NEVER WANTED X-MEN TO BEGIN WITH.

They where convinced into taking it, but they didn't want it. It took 2 low budget successful movies for them to realize, hey we might have something, So up the budget.

I could of told you from day one you had something. Consider all the modern issues The X-Men deal with? who can't relate? it appeals tooo soo many.

Anyways, let's go back really, far back to the 90's We all remember TAS.
Once more the wonderful company of FOX help distribute the series but back then unlike now they wanted the X-Men, they wanted the X-Men too much and they didn't like the idea that Marvel had control over one of their most popular series. So what happened? it got cancelled.

So that's 2 strikes but considering that it took 2 movies for them to realize what they had make it 3 strikes.

Avi Arad wake up!! No good can come from the alliance that is FOX and X-Men. (Well actually some good came out of it already) but in the end all that good suffered IMO.

Marvel has something really special in the X-Men, it has history and so much more. I love the X-Men it is my favorite team, character(Gambit), and comicbook of all times so i want the best for anything X-Men. I ask that Marvel take it's rights back and find a studio that will appreciate what it has and do the best for it. Just because FOX has an X at the end doesn't make it right for my X-Men .


edit- Oh and as for the point of this thread well-
i just want to know if others agree with me? :P

 

[ntcrawler]

they may be good for business, but they're not good for the franchise or the fan community. Sony and WB seem to have figured out how to properly handle this kind of material. FOX has not. The more success I hear about Spiderman and other films, the more I feel we're being pooped on here in the X-men world.

 

[ntcrawler]

Let's start from the most known factor, FOX NEVER WANTED X-MEN TO BEGIN WITH.

Sounds like they mainly grabbed the rights as part of a large land-grab so that someone else wouldn't get their hands on the rights.

They where convinced into taking it, but they didn't want it. It took 2 low budget successful movies for them to realize, hey we might have something, So up the budget.

And then stick their hands directly on the script and put a gun to the writer's heads. Sort-of like what happened with SeaQuest seasons 2 and 3.. And we know how SeaQuest turned out.

Avi Arad wake up!! No good can come from the alliance that is FOX and X-Men. (Well actually some good came out of it already) but in the end all that good suffered IMO.

Actually it's no longer Avi's problem. He has been replaced by a new guy who claims to be a true comic nerd. let's see if he can make a difference.

Marvel has something really special in the X-Men, it has history and so much more. I love the X-Men it is my favorite team, character(Gambit), and comicbook of all times so i want the best for anything X-Men. I ask that Marvel take it's rights back and find a studio that will appreciate what it has and do the best for it. Just because FOX has an X at the end doesn't make it right for my X-Men .

Theoretically, if Marvel took the rights back, it's entirely possible there could even be a bidding war if other studios realize the profit potential that X-men could have. But it's gotta be more than just being the highest bidder to be awarded license rights. In fact, I wouldn't limit it to the studios but give individual directors a chance to grab up the rights and then find themselves a studio who help produce it. All the best films we've seen so far were because the project was in the director's hands and not in the studio CEO's hands.

edit- Oh and as for the point of this thread well-
i just want to know if others agree with me? :P

I agree with you that FOX is good for "no nonesense" business, but not for X-Men. Their approach is what you do for investment banking and bonds, but that's not the way to make a movie.

 

[flavio_lebeau]

hmm i agree, but its not like Marvel will take the rights back anyways *shrugs* they would have to pay an absurdly big amount of money, and Fox is already developing more two movies, so...
but count on me for any petition

 

[chaseter]

Fox is good for something. Family Guy and Simpsons

 

[gambitfire]

arn't the rights active for only a certain amount of time? So whenever the hell they expire may it be 2009 i say MARVEL DON'T SELL THEM BACK.

 

[gambitfire]

that's the only thing it's good for Chaseter and even then they cancelled Family Guy for a while.

No offense to any Wolverine fans im not throwing out hate but i can't help it wonder if FOX had creative control over TAS what that would of been like?

Not the X-Men that's for sure.

 

[La_She-Beast]

Fox is good for something. Family Guy and Simpsons

And Futurama. And X-Files. And X2. And Edward Scissorhands, etc... so I guess they're not that terrible.

 

[gambitfire]

Futurama...eh...

X-files? hated the movie , Edward Scissorhands ok but that isn't credit too FOX if not credit to Mr. Burton.

lol

 

[La_She-Beast]

But you watched the series?
Yeah and true it's more credit to Mr. Burton... but they did agree. That was surprising imo. And I hate Father made in USA and Family Guy... that 'technique' of taking a joke and time it more than 5 minutes... I'll say it again tho, Fox is not that terrible.

 

[Mother_Askani]

Fox is like any other studio - they don't know how to deal with a comic book movie or an ensemble type of cast.

Those two things doomed the X-franchise.

The only reason the first movie was so good was that the budget was low enough that they were forced to concentrate on characters rather than special effects.

I don't think anyone at Fox truly understand why X-Men is successful. I've talked to several people in their advertising department and they laughed at the fact that anyone over the age of 8 years old reads X-Men comics. The truly didn't "get" X-Men or understand the appeal other than to as a popcorn special effects flick.

 

[ntcrawler]

I don't think anyone at Fox truly understand why X-Men is successful. I've talked to several people in their advertising department and they laughed at the fact that anyone over the age of 8 years old reads X-Men comics. The truly didn't "get" X-Men or understand the appeal other than to as a popcorn special effects flick.

They probably never heard of manga or the concept of the graphic novel and the hundreds of millions of readers around the world then.

 

[Mistopurr83]

i just want to know if others agree with me? :P

Yes I agree with you. I think Marvel and Avi Arad were being so foolish for letting Fox own the rights of X-Men, Dardevil and F4. I can't wait until their rights for X-Men and Daredevil (I guess) expire. It's goona be too long until their F4 rights expire.

Maybe if X-Men had been made after Spider-Man the film rights for it would've gone to a different studio.

 

[Boba_Fett_123]

You know, there are just not enough threads like this. I'm so glad you stepped up to the plate and made a new one. Good looking out, gambitfire.

 

[WorthyStevens]

They first cancelled Family Guy. Then they cancelled Arrested Development.

Anyone know the year when Tom Rothman started at Fox?

 

[chaseter]

They first cancelled Family Guy. Then they cancelled Arrested Development.

Anyone know the year when Tom Rothman started at Fox?

They saw they made a mistake with Family Guy and Futurama is even coming back Maybe they will realize they took a huge dump on X3 and ruined the masterpiece it could have been.

 

[WorthyStevens]

Yes, but AD is still cancelled.

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

I don't neccesarily disagree, but I guess I just don't care enough to take up a personal vendetta against a movie studio.

Here's what I do know:

Like it or not, Fox is a movie studio, they are a business, and their business is making money. The release date for X-Men: The Last Stand was not negotiable, for many reasons, and it wasn't a petty revenge plot at Superman Returns and Bryan Singer. 1st off, that's the first big movie weekend of the summer. That's bigtime numbers right there from people going to see movies now that school's out, and all that other good stuff.

The actors also have certain availability. I mean, we had a hard enough time as it was with actor availability, we already lost Cyclops and Mystique, and had had Rogue in a minimal role thanks to actor availability. You keep pushing a project back, and these actors have other projects they are on that they have commitments to, and you're going to start losing more and more actors and their characters until you can't make the movie anymore.

There's also the fact that you can't wait too long after the previous movie to make a sequel, or else the audience will lose interest. Especially in this day in age where we have movie series' like Lord of the Rings, The Matrix, Kill Bill, and now Pirates of the Caribean where the movies are being filmed together or closely together and being released within a year of each other (6 months in the case of the last 2 Matrix movies...)

The May 26th release date was non-negotiable, and I don't blame Fox for sticking to it. I disagree with people who are upset with Fox over the release date issue. And you know what, even more in defense of Fox, when you're an employee, and being paid by someone to do a job for you... sometimes you have to take it upon yourself to meet THEIR deadline, and not expect them to give you more time. Deadlines are set for a reason, and if you can't meet that deadline, then maybe you're not the right person for the job.

I will agree that I don't like the studio execs having a say in creative decisions. If you're not going to trust the source material, then maybe you shouldn't be the one making the movie. In the case of original movies, if you don't trust the storyteller, then you shouldn't be the ones making his movie.

But in the end, I don't find myself caring enough to hold a personal grudge against a movie studio. Tom Rothman is a business man, and he's doing his job, and I'm not going to hate a man for doing his job. He's not selling drugs to our youth, he's not prostituting out young women, he's not supplying terrorists with AK-47's and grenade launchers... he heads a movie studio, and his job description is to do what's in the best interest of the studio's profits. That's what he does. Fox seems to be doing pretty well, so Rothman is probably doing his job pretty well.

I've never met the man before, and if I did, who knows, he might be the coolest guy ever on the face of the planet, and be a real joy to go out and have a beer with. Or he could be a true dickface who deserve to be hit in the temple with a crowbar, but until I actually meet the man in person, I'm not going to make those accusations.

 

[Retroman]

Fox promised to love the X-Men for better or worse for richer or poorer in sickness and in health for as long as we both shall live.

 

[TrailerCues]

The actors also have certain availability. I mean, we had a hard enough time as it was with actor availability, we already lost Cyclops and Mystique, and had had Rogue in a minimal role thanks to actor availability

What does actor availability have to do with giving them something decent to do with their time frame ? I wouls have rather had Cyclops just simply LEAVE THE MANSION then go to the Lake & they were probably better off not even using Rogue anyway did anyone remember he at all during the Movie ? Mystque was okay. Again do not blame the actors availability all blame go to the writers & Routhman for not wanting to give these characters something better to do & in no matter what time frame anythings possible. So you live in your own little dream world thinking FOX had the best intentions when it came to actor availability. Things could have just as easily been done differently with no cgi or special effects required. Again you live in your own little dream world there thinking FOX had the best intentions with solme of the decisions they made which most of us know here is bull****

 

[ntcrawler]

^^^ And what about actors who were available? The acttress who portrayed Psylocke was on call for 2 months, did 2 weeks of filming, for what amounted to essentially 60 seconds of screentime. That's the best use of her time?

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

What does actor availability have to do with giving them something decent to do with their time frame ? I wouls have rather had Cyclops just simply LEAVE THE MANSION then go to the Lake & they were probably better off not even using Rogue anyway did anyone remember he at all during the Movie ? Mystque was okay. Again do not blame the actors availability all blame go to the writers & Routhman for not wanting to give these characters something better to do & in no matter what time frame anythings possible. So you live in your own little dream world thinking FOX had the best intentions when it came to actor availability. Things could have just as easily been done differently with no cgi or special effects required. Again you live in your own little dream world there thinking FOX had the best intentions with solme of the decisions they made which most of us know here is bull****

Okay, but it's not like Fox was out with the worst of intentions...

It's not like Fox was around thinking "What can we do to make the worst possible movie, to piss off the most people?"

Fact is, actor availability DOES have something to do with it.

Trust me, Scott just leaving the mansion, never to be seen again, is not doing something more meaningful with the time that he had. At least what he had played some kind of role in the plot. Is it ideal? Hell no. Cyclops dying is the single worst thing about this film, in my opinion. But James Marsden had contractual obligations to do Superman Returns, and didn't have a lot of time for X-Men: The Last Stand.

During the shoot for X-Men: The Last Stand, Anna Paquin was filming another movie as well. Margaret, I believe it's called... and that limited her availability as well. Not as much time available means not as much of a chance to flesh out the role some of us may have liked.

And the reason why despite the actresses availability, Psylocke wasn't used a lot, was because she was a character that had next to no involvement at all in the plot.

And anyways, you miss the point completely on my "actor availability" arguement. The point is, due to the fact that these actors have lives and careers outside of "X-Men", you can't push back the release date and postpone the production of this film, because if you do, the actors will have other projects that they will be obligated to. Hugh Jackman, in particular, is quite a busy man this year, with 2 movies out already, and 3 more out before the end of the year, I believe.

Yes, the actor availability plays a part in it.

Unfortunatley, so do politics at times, and roles that would have been limited anyways may end up worse off than they could have been (Cyclops, for instance), but these studios aren't out with some kind of agenda against their own product to make it worse so that they can piss off fans.

They want to make money. And they are going to do what they think is best for making them money.

And you can't blame them for that.

 

[Celestial]

Thanks, Nell, for bringing some sense to the argument.

Before demonising Fox, take a look at the state of the other studios. Apart from Spider-Man, Sony is in a mess. Disney are cutting back on jobs and projects despite the success of PotC2. Paramount is short of funds and has the mess with Tom Cruise. Warner Bros has had a series of big budget, underperforming movies this summer.

 

[CapBeerCino]

Okay, but it's not like Fox was out with the worst of intentions...

It's not like Fox was around thinking "What can we do to make the worst possible movie, to piss off the most people?"

Fact is, actor availability DOES have something to do with it.

Trust me, Scott just leaving the mansion, never to be seen again, is not doing something more meaningful with the time that he had. At least what he had played some kind of role in the plot. Is it ideal? Hell no. Cyclops dying is the single worst thing about this film, in my opinion. But James Marsden had contractual obligations to do Superman Returns, and didn't have a lot of time for X-Men: The Last Stand.

During the shoot for X-Men: The Last Stand, Anna Paquin was filming another movie as well. Margaret, I believe it's called... and that limited her availability as well. Not as much time available means not as much of a chance to flesh out the role some of us may have liked.

And the reason why despite the actresses availability, Psylocke wasn't used a lot, was because she was a character that had next to no involvement at all in the plot.

And anyways, you miss the point completely on my "actor availability" arguement. The point is, due to the fact that these actors have lives and careers outside of "X-Men", you can't push back the release date and postpone the production of this film, because if you do, the actors will have other projects that they will be obligated to. Hugh Jackman, in particular, is quite a busy man this year, with 2 movies out already, and 3 more out before the end of the year, I believe.

Yes, the actor availability plays a part in it.

Unfortunatley, so do politics at times, and roles that would have been limited anyways may end up worse off than they could have been (Cyclops, for instance), but these studios aren't out with some kind of agenda against their own product to make it worse so that they can piss off fans.

They want to make money. And they are going to do what they think is best for making them money.

And you can't blame them for that.

Are you serious? Okay, let's say James didn't have a lot of time and leaving the mansion was pointless (better than what we got imo, but nevermind) why was he hardly mentioned after that? why was Logan crying when the professor died, and then they held him a memorial not even caring Scott is dead as well? would that take more of James time?

I read sevrel reviews in which the critics wondered if the way Cyclops was treated was some sort of punishment for James doing SR...

So in his case I'm sure they had "worst of intentions"...

And Rouge - that's just bad writing. I still don't get the point of the love triangle/ cure plot they tried using with her. It's like they had the beginning of an idea but they never carried through. That may not be out of "worst intentions", just general indifference on their side.

 

[ntcrawler]

And Rouge - that's just bad writing. I still don't get the point of the love triangle/ cure plot they tried using with her. It's like they had the beginning of an idea but they never carried through. That may not be out of "worst intentions", just general indifference on their side.

She's jealous of Bobby being with Kitty, so she thinks that by curing herself that will make her better and Bobby will want her back. Never mind everything else that's happened and the love and support she's been getting as well as the training from the rest of the mansion. Some people love it, they say it was a nice way to end Rogue's character arc. I think it was just cheap and bad writing. But again, if X3 was meant to run into a wall and be the big finish, the dead end, this was certainly an effective way to end Rogue. Course, if the cure turns out to not be permanent, that will be a nice touch and at least be consistent with the first two films: there IS no cure for mutation or an easy way out. Live with it, deal with it, accept it, because ultimately in the end, you can't avoid it. So back to school, Marie!