Is Kevin Feige the New Tom Rothman?

[DarkSovereignty]

.....Who the hell is Tom Rothman?

this guy:

 

[VenomVsSpidey]

.....Who the hell is Tom Rothman?

The guy who made X3/Wolverine/DD (Theatrical) the definitions of Mediocre, and those...F4 movies.

 

[BlackLantern]

a little dramatic

 

[Anubis]

this guy:

Dude he's a Movie exec. That's an insult to Mephisto.

 

[DarkSovereignty]

lmao... oh you.

 

[BlackLantern]

it's a general rule, at least in Hollywood, that movie/studio execs are fairly evil and greedy types that want to make sure the MILLIONS they dump into a movie is worth it

 

[Anubis]

Cuz infant blood is expensive, and who wants to eat baby seal heats without a glass of infant blood?

 

[BlackLantern]

I hear that if you buy one platinum toilet, you have to buy two

 

[DarkSovereignty]

its true...believe me. ::grabs polish:: off to clean the toilets.

 

[roach]

so we hate this guy cause he made movies we didnt like

 

[BlackLantern]

I think its a combination of things

- the fandoms overblown expectations

- lots of info that leaked out that Rothman meddles in a fair amount of movies, like undercutting directors and producers and essentially ordering changes on sets and scripts

I don't hate him, but his reputation among the fandom is quite amusing to me

 

[I_am_iron_man]

In a nutshell:
*Not paying Terrence Howard to come back as Jim Rhodes/War Machine in Iron Man 2

*Rushing Jon Favreau into making Iron Man 2 (thereby, complicating/compromising his artistic vision in the process) and then turning it into a semi-infomercial for The Avengers

*Not giving Jon Favreau a raise (considering that Iron Man broke the bank) in exchange for directing The Avengers. Not that Joss Whedon is a bad choice per se, it's just that he has an unproven track record regarding box office hits.

*Firing Edward Norton from The Avengers for not being enough of a "team player".

Wow. How to create idiot threads.

1. Howard wants more money. More than Downey Jr. More than everyone else. Marvel haven't so much money (it's a studio born in 2007, damn, it paid the movies with bank's loans!!!). So they fired him.
2. AHAHAHAHAHAHA. That stupid (and said stupid) rumor. Cinemablend was one of the "fakest" web sites in the world. Like IESB (when they come with all the negative rumors about Punisher: War Zone that...they reveals "false"), Cinemablend's scoops and rumors are 99.9% false. And after all...Rushing Iron Man 2 with a sub-plot that appears in 5-10 minutes in the entire movie? Wow. So faaake. I don't believe people believe this s**t!
3. AHAHAHAHAHAHA double AHAHAHAHAHAHAH. Favreau has said from the beginning he WON'T direct Avengers. He want direct Iron Man 3 but not Avengers. And why Marvel won't give money to him and after paid him to serve as executive producer of the movie? C'mon...People i can't believe you believe this s**t!
4. This is the only FAIL of Marvel. From what i've heard Norton haven't sign a multi-contract to reprise the role in 8-10 movies so they fired him. Well, Marvel works in that way. The put their actors in multi-contract so they can "give the continuity" and not change an actor for every movie. They want an actor for Banner, an actor for Stark, an actor for Fury and not "Norton is Banner in TIH and Avengers but in TIH2 he's not reprising the role". So they changed him before this. Norton was interested in Avengers but not in other Marvel Movies or TIH2. So, they want an actor to play Banner for 8-10 movies and fired him to put Ruffalo (who has signs a multi-contract deal).

 

[TMC1982]

Much like your posting on IMDB, you prove to be an idiot here also.

A) Money was why terrence did not come back for IM2, Not feige.
B) IM2 wasn't rushed, it had a bleh script. but still solid
C) I don't get this, IM2 was no infomercial for Avengers, not at all. It was mentioned like, what...10 minutes altogether?
D) For all we know, norton wasn't. He has a history of doing that, you know. As bummed as I am about him not coming back, they hired an also awesome actor for banner.

What the hell are you talking about my postings on IMDb.com? That's a different subject for a different time that ought to be discussed elsewhere, like in a more private setting. As for IM2 being a rather rushed production and coming across as a bit of an Avengers infomercial:
http://www.**************.com/fansites/MarvelFreshman/news/?a=21139

And I already mentioned that Terrence Howard was dropped/left due to money issues regardless of whom is really to blame.

 

[david icke]

Way back, not long after Im1 had done it's run, there was a report on aicn that Faverau was not happy that he had only been given 2yrs to do IM2, he felt he needed 3yrs to deliver a great movie.
What this report said was that he was told he would get first choice on Avengers as payback for putting IM2 on the fast track.

 

[3dman27]

Dude he's a Movie exec. That's an insult to Mephisto.

true

 

[BlackLantern]

Way back, not long after Im1 had done it's run, there was a report on aicn that Faverau was not happy that he had only been given 2yrs to do IM2, he felt he needed 3yrs to deliver a great movie.
What this report said was that he was told he would get first choice on Avengers as payback for putting IM2 on the fast track.

AICN is full of ****

 

[roach]

why are we discounting AICN now???

 

[david icke]

So, aicn don't ever have sources, accurate reports etc? Because if that is what you are saying, that is utter bs.
There have been too many reports of Faverau wanting 3yrs but getting told he only had 2, to completely discount them, the aicn report was the first to report this as far as I know, and that was way back.
So, don't shoot the messenger, and let's say Marvel did make that desicion that resulted in an IM2 that should have been a lot better, what do people think of that? I would say that no-one is saying much about it, because they don't like to think about it as they want to beleive they finally have a studio doing these movies who are beyond reproach, and therefore they are giving Marvel studios a sacred cow status beyond critisicm.

 

[BlackLantern]

I'd say about 80-90 percent of the time, AICN has it wrong....I tend to get a lot of my actual studio news from non-fanboy sources.....DHD, Hollywood Reporter, places like that

 

[roach]

So, aicn don't ever have sources, accurate reports etc? Because if that is what you are saying, that is utter bs.
There have been too many reports of Faverau wanting 3yrs but getting told he only had 2, to completely discount them, the aicn report was the first to report this as far as I know, and that was way back.
So, don't shoot the messenger, and let's say Marvel did make that desicion that resulted in an IM2 that should have been a lot better, what do people think of that? I would say that no-one is saying much about it, because they don't like to think about it as they want to beleive they finally have a studio doing these movies who are beyond reproach, and therefore they are giving Marvel studios a sacred cow status beyond critisicm.

exactly
I did some digging into the whole Norton thing since people said he was acting like a prima donna and such.
Norton's disagreement with Marvel was because he wanted a longer cut of TIH while Marvel wanted to keep it under 2 hours for more showings at theaters...which is one of the many things fanboys are made at Rothman for.

 

[BlackLantern]

exactly
I did some digging into the whole Norton thing since people said he was acting like a prima donna and such.
Norton's disagreement with Marvel was because he wanted a longer cut of TIH while Marvel wanted to keep it under 2 hours for more showings at theaters...which is one of the many things fanboys are made at Rothman for.

I wouldn't say "prima donna" as thats overstating the point, I do know, because he has done this with many other films that he's worked on, Ed Norton likes to go over the script and have the power to make changes or have rewrites on his character...he did this with 25th Hour, American History X, and Death To Smoochy.

Marvel just refused to indulge him, I think that was the main issue

 

[roach]

whats wrong with an actor trying to make a film better....These were the changes he made to the script:The new origin story references Ultimate Marvel's take on the Hulk, which also had him created in an attempt to create super soldiers. Norton deleted Rick Jones and toned down S.H.I.E.L.D.'s presence. He also added the scene where Banner attempts to extract a cure from a flower and his e-mailing with Samuel Sterns, which references Bruce Jones' story.

However I do also think it comes down to who the person is. If that had been RDJ making script changes then Marvel wouldnt have had an issue. Isnt Whedon also rewriting Cap and Avengers???
If Marvel had such an awful time with Norton why negotiate for him to be in Avengers???

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Well, can't that mean that the script was rushed too? Scripts go through many drafts, and ideas can be rejected because there is just not enough time in the schedule to accomodate the sets being built etc. With a 2yr time frame your ambition has to be scaled down.
I have always thought it was a very questionable act not to give JF 3 yrs to do IM2, it was a creative compromise due to the shared universe concept.
They did not want IM2, Cap and Thor out in the same year, but what they could have done was give one a Christmas release that year. edit: or at the very least give IM2 a Christams release this year so he had another 6months.
No matter how you look at it, it was a creative compromise that affected the movie's quality. We might have got an IM2 that was good all the way through as the first 30/40mins of the movie.

I do not think the people in control as as bad as Rothman, but I do not think this thread is a 'fail'. Just because they are being true to the roots of the comics doe not mean there may be questionable commercial decisions made that affect the creative output, and these desicions should have a thread for discussion.

I love how the people who are signing an invisible petition have absolutely no defence for the rushed schedule of IM2, whereas if it was Rothman who pulled the strings on that one they would be complaining by writing their names in fungus on a petiton made of s*** and posting it through his letter box.

edit: as for the other points raised....apparently TH was not that great on set and they really had to pull that performance out of him, so that was a creative desicion made by the director as well. Fair enough.

and they are a relatively small film studio, they have a policy of seeking out talent who are relatively inexpensive, so anyone who works for them knows this, and cannot expect a large paycheck in the way other studios would usually do, even if they deliver a hit like Faverau. I don't mind the fact they are trying to keep budgets for the sfx instead of paying large salaries, I don't know what the deals are, but maybe they should have given someone like JF a percentage of the profits on the 2nd movie, for all I know they did though. So, i am not that bothered by the decision not to amp up his paycheck, they get paid more than enough anyway. If you are really passionate about the project you would take the amount they are offering everybody else. It would be different if someone else was getting paid more for their work for their studio.

edit: but the way they handled the sererance with Norton was very unprofessional, citing the 'not a team player' stuff in the press release, that was basically revenge for him not doing promo work for TIH due to a falling out over the final cut, another commercial desicion that led to a creative compromise, that deserves to be discussed.

Couldnt agree with these 2 posts anymore, Fiege has done some good things, but he has meddled a few times now and this has been to the detriment of TIH and IM2.

 

[BlackLantern]

whats wrong with an actor trying to make a film better....These were the changes he made to the script:The new origin story references Ultimate Marvel's take on the Hulk, which also had him created in an attempt to create super soldiers. Norton deleted Rick Jones and toned down S.H.I.E.L.D.'s presence. He also added the scene where Banner attempts to extract a cure from a flower and his e-mailing with Samuel Sterns, which references Bruce Jones' story.

However I do also think it comes down to who the person is. If that had been RDJ making script changes then Marvel wouldnt have had an issue. Isnt Whedon also rewriting Cap and Avengers???
If Marvel had such an awful time with Norton why negotiate for him to be in Avengers???

Marvel has made it very clear that these characters have years and years of history behind them....any actor (regardless of who it is) has to acknowledge and respect that...I think if RDJ asked to make a change, Marvel would listen and maybe accomodate him, bot Norton expected to be allowed to make changes and got all out of sorts when Marvel said no

for years, we, as fans, wanted the companies that created these books to have control over what goes on screen...now that has happened and people are still complaining?


Whedon is the director....directors, in most films, will make some changes to the script

 

[MadVillainy]

whats wrong with an actor trying to make a film better....These were the changes he made to the script:The new origin story references Ultimate Marvel's take on the Hulk, which also had him created in an attempt to create super soldiers. Norton deleted Rick Jones and toned down S.H.I.E.L.D.'s presence. He also added the scene where Banner attempts to extract a cure from a flower and his e-mailing with Samuel Sterns, which references Bruce Jones' story.

However I do also think it comes down to who the person is. If that had been RDJ making script changes then Marvel wouldnt have had an issue. Isnt Whedon also rewriting Cap and Avengers???
If Marvel had such an awful time with Norton why negotiate for him to be in Avengers???

How do you know those are the changes Norton made