The Full List of "Crimes" Committed by Fox's Tom Rothman - Part 1

[FilmNerdJamie]

Fox is letting Bryan Singer call the shoots on X-Men: First Class. That in itself shows they learned how integral he was to that franchise being such a big success for them.

 

[danoyse]

Fox is letting Bryan Singer call the shoots on X-Men: First Class. That in itself shows they learned how integral he was to that franchise being such a big success for them.

And I imagine he'll be involved in the Wolverine sequel in some way if and when that movie moves forward too.

 

[Octoberist]

I don't think THE Wolverine even has a firm date, does it? Just 2012..

 

[danoyse]

I don't think THE Wolverine even has a firm date, does it? Just 2012..

No, it never did...which was the first sign something was not going right.

 

[FilmNerdJamie]

And I imagine he'll be involved in the Wolverine sequel in some way if and when that movie moves forward too.

Getting him to direct would spike up interest/support like a diabetic's blood sugar at an ice-cream buffet.

 

[FilmNerdJamie]

No, it never did...which was the first sign something was not going right.

The moment they put Prometheus in that early June 2012 slot, I knew The Wolverine wasn't hitting next summer. Hell, the entire year of 2012 is damn near filled anyway.

 

[KenK]

I don't think THE Wolverine even has a firm date, does it? Just 2012..

Plus, 2012 is already looking to be a packed summer, let alone year. Avengers, Spider-Man, Dark Knight Rises, that's already three exceedingly more high-profile comic book films coming out than Wolverine.

Singer being more or less a hands-on producer on X-related films from here on out wouldn't be a bad idea. As a director in general, he's been a bit hit-and-miss, and coming back to direct an X-Film might be too daunting. Especially after Superman Returns caught a lot of fan backlash, and took forever to make any decent money when you factor in its budget. And it would only be logical for Singer to get involved with Wolverine, as this new film's script was written by Christopher Maquarrie, who's written for Singer in the past on more than one occasion. If Singer didn't direct Wolverine, I can imagine him suggesting directors that would work well with whatever script's been written.

All things considered, there are just too many variables to really know how it'll all turn out.

 

[TheVileOne]

Well I guess that technically gives Singer time to finish Jack the Giant Killer.

But then what if X-men: First Class tanks?

Still I think Singer doing The Wolverine would be a great way to bolster that movie and try to erase all the garbage committed with the first Wolverine movie which was an overproduced joke.

 

[chaseter]

Fox searchlight is completely different from Fox.

Yup. They don't micromanage their Indie movies because there isn't enough money involved. Searchlight and 20th Century Fox are two different studios.

 

[chaseter]

Aside from your list just being remarkably skewed to serve your argument, you keep trying to turn this into an argument about how the Wolverine sequel will turn out that I'm not really apart of. I've responded to your "My opinion is an indisputable FACT" declaration that the movie has no chance of even being decent, let alone "truly amazing", but that's only because I can't stand this black-and-white, "If it's not absolutely, positively, life-changingly awesome, than it sucks" hive mind mentality among a lot of comic movie fans. The fact that you can't even wait to see who replaces Aronofsky doesn't even matter, because you believe to your very core that whoever they chose won't be anywhere near as good, and that FOX will make every decision to make the film bad.

And this is just such a fairweather situation it's ridiculous. By extension of Aronofsky, a whole heap of y'all would have been on FOX's d***, but sh** hits the fan, and you're back to hating with a vengeance. No one wants to take the stance of, who's gonna replace Aronofsky, it's "Oh they're just gonna get another hack yes-man that'll do whatever they say. FOX is the worst studio ever!!! Tom Rothman slept with my ex-wife to make this investigation look like a personal vendetta!!! He's pissing all over my cereal!!!"

It's seemingly impossible for a large majority of you to express your dissatisfaction of FOX as a studio without making them out to be Nazi war criminals, and it just makes no sense to me, quite frankly.

What franchise do they have Ken that is high in quality and a box office dominator? They don't have one! They plowed their biggest franchise into the ground and Bryan Singer and Mathew Vaughn, and past tense Aronofsky, are trying to bring those films back out of the toilet. Their newest franchise, Avatar, succeeded because Cameron was left the **** alone.

They even can't leave Bryan Singer and Vaughn alone and Fox once again...came in to rush production for First Class. Matthew Vaughn has his nose to the grindstone trying to edit that film and get everything ready to go. Fox can't stand back and let someone do something. They love to micromanage. We hear all these horror stories about Fox for a reason. People don't make this **** up just for funzies. Directors have sworn never to work for Fox again. Why is that? How did Fox get this reputation?

Fairweather? WTF? Do I need to stick it out with Fox while they make crappy movies? Is Fox mah home town sports team GOOOOO FOX!

Do you work for Fox?

 

[Zant]

Fox haters are more deluded than I thought I love how they ignore the other major studios and their sins. Don't get me started with WB Sony and Paramount
They also think Avater and X men are the only big franchises Fox has

 

[chaseter]

Name Fox's good quality big box office franchises that are still going.

Other studio's do bad things as well, see Sony and SM3/SM4. Sony isn't an amazing studio either. They are like a mini Fox. But, they aren't that big of a studio and what they produce in a year pales in comparison to what Fox does. They don't do it near the level Fox does nor do they push out the sheer amount of crap Fox does. Avatar saved Fox. They were producing so much crap that they were losing money every year.

WB, Disney, Paramount are the leading studios for quality control. Fox is at the end with Sony right behind it.

 

[Passdom]

AFAIK Fox didn't even fully finance Avatar because they didn't fully believe in the project, so its not like they reaped all of the profits either.

 

[chaseter]

AFAIK Fox didn't even fully finance Avatar because they didn't fully believe in the project, so its not like they reaped all of the profits either.

Yeah they didn't get all of those profits but they definitely made money on that thing.

WB has been the market share leader for the past 3 years:
http://www.deadline.com/tag/box-office-market-share/

You don't get there by micromanaging talent and green lighting unlimited amounts of terrible movies.

 

[Dark Knight]

LMAO!

This is a great thread!

Both Fox and Tom Rothman SUCK!

 

[dude stannis]

I think Rothman has since been promoted into a position where he's not getting to micro manage his films.

Alex Young is in the studio head position now, because he's the man that went up to Robert Rodriguez and said "Do whatever you have to, but make an AWESOME Predator movie."

The same can be said with Bryan Singer and X-Men and Joe Carnahan and The A-Team, I suppose.

I never thought the summer would come where Fox has the only $100 mill+ budgeted film that I'm completely interested in with X-Men: FC.

 

[KenK]

What franchise do they have Ken that is high in quality and a box office dominator? They don't have one!

Outside of Nolan's Batman films, what company does? Sony doesn't know what the f*** they're doing with Spider-Man, they just know they can't let the rights go back to Marvel. Summit's got Twilight, with movies ranging from atrocious to bad, to "eh". When that golden goose stops laying eggs, that whole company may be up sh**'s creek without something comparably popular.

At this point, I'll give you Universal with The Fast and the Furious franchise, but that's about it.

To say nothing of the fact that the last two X-Related films still made close the a billion dollars worldwide. There's no argument to make as far as a law of diminishing returns.

They plowed their biggest franchise into the ground and Bryan Singer and Mathew Vaughn, and past tense Aronofsky, are trying to bring those films back out of the toilet.

Why make this statement, just to complain about FOX still micromanaging Singer and Vaughn now.

Their newest franchise, Avatar, succeeded because Cameron was left the **** alone.

People were gonna see it because James Cameron was the director. Fox involving themselves in the production one way or the other wasn't going to affect the box office for that film.

They even can't leave Bryan Singer and Vaughn alone and Fox once again...came in to rush production for First Class. Matthew Vaughn has his nose to the grindstone trying to edit that film and get everything ready to go. Fox can't stand back and let someone do something. They love to micromanage.

Singer and Vaughn quite honestly need to prove themselves. Superman Returns was Singer's "total control" film, and all he could give us was a rehash of the first Donner film and a bastard child for Superman. Singer may have done the best X-Films of the series, but he's got a major misstep to answer for, and if FOX think they need to reign him in, I can't really blame them.

We hear all these horror stories about Fox for a reason. People don't make this **** up just for funzies. Directors have sworn never to work for Fox again. Why is that? How did Fox get this reputation?

But as we've seen, obviously there are directors who have come back into the fold, despite having public issue in the past. It goes both ways, dammit! That the whole point I've been trying to make!

Fairweather? WTF? Do I need to stick it out with Fox while they make crappy movies? Is Fox mah home town sports team GOOOOO FOX!

What I'm saying is, Fox makes a decision fans like, they have no beef. But if that decision doesn't pan out, you quickly go back to the hardline of FOX being THE WORST MOVIE STUDIO EVER!!!

 

[KenK]

I think Rothman has since been promoted into a position where he's not getting to micro manage his films.

Alex Young is in the studio head position now, because he's the man that went up to Robert Rodriguez and said "Do whatever you have to, but make an AWESOME Predator movie."

The same can be said with Bryan Singer and X-Men and Joe Carnahan and The A-Team, I suppose.

I never thought the summer would come where Fox has the only $100 mill+ budgeted film that I'm completely interested in with X-Men: FC.

You mean the man who's the focal point for all this rage doesn't even get as directly involved in the films as he has in the past?!?!?!


AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!!!!!!

 

[dude stannis]

You mean the man who's the focal point for all this rage doesn't even get as directly involved in the films as he has in the past?!?!?!


AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!!!!!!

They had a disastrous 2008. So they reshuffled the corporate structure, I'm pretty sure XO: Wolverine was the last Rothmanised Fox film. Every big budget tentpole after that, The A-Team, Predators, Avatar, Unstoppable, Knight and Day and Wall Street 2, the filmmakers where left to their own devices, and as far as, the Joe Schmoe public and myself personally go, that's a pretty damn good list of films, with great directors, great casts, good scripts and ratings appropriate.

 

[chaseter]

Ken...do you work for Fox?

There are a lot of big franchises that pull in massive bank and are also good movies. Harry Potter, James Bond, Batman, Star Trek, Lord of the Rings, every Pixar movie ever made, etc. What does Fox have? They had X-Men and Wolverine only made 175 domestic...which is pathetic and they have Ice Age. Those are their two blockbuster franchises. That is sad. With any luck, the X-Men can come back to be good movies again. That only gets done when execs stay out of the way.

Here are the top franchises:
Harry Potter..........$2,007,803,144....$6,369,699,024
James Bond ..........$1,609,487,453....$5,074,402,453
Star Wars.............$2,226,166,672....$4,411,410,761
Shrek...................$1,270,337,989....$2,955,797,005
Lord of the Rings....$1,033,587,872....$2,913,933,388
Pirates..................$1,038,147,461....$2,681,667,528
Batman.................$1,465,583,452....$2,648,834,002
Spider-Man ...........$1,113,761,163....$2,496,285,178
Jurassic Park..........$767,320,741.......$2,075,654,626
Indiana Jones.........$939,110,286.......$1,980,610,580
Toy Story..............$883,355,738.......$1,947,188,680

1st is domestic, 2nd is worldwide. How many of those are Fox movies?

 

[Lord Blackbolt]

There's a reason they had only one or 2 movies that grossed over 100 million domestically last year. All of their movies did bad in 2010. Their biggest movie was Narnia...and that wasn't even a hit.

 

[Passdom]

Ken...do you work for Fox?

There are a lot of big franchises that pull in massive bank and are also good movies. Harry Potter, James Bond, Batman, Star Trek, Lord of the Rings, every Pixar movie ever made, etc. What does Fox have? They had X-Men and Wolverine only made 175 domestic...which is pathetic and they have Ice Age. Those are their two blockbuster franchises. That is sad. With any luck, the X-Men can come back to be good movies again. That only gets done when execs stay out of the way.

Here are the top franchises:
Harry Potter..........$2,007,803,144....$6,369,699,024
James Bond ..........$1,609,487,453....$5,074,402,453
Star Wars.............$2,226,166,672....$4,411,410,761
Shrek...................$1,270,337,989....$2,955,797,005
Lord of the Rings....$1,033,587,872....$2,913,933,388
Pirates..................$1,038,147,461....$2,681,667,528
Batman.................$1,465,583,452....$2,648,834,002
Spider-Man ...........$1,113,761,163....$2,496,285,178
Jurassic Park..........$767,320,741.......$2,075,654,626
Indiana Jones.........$939,110,286.......$1,980,610,580
Toy Story..............$883,355,738.......$1,947,188,680

1st is domestic, 2nd is worldwide. How many of those are Fox movies?

cough Star Wars cough. Its been a Fox distributed property since the 70s, so it counts.

Counting them by studio...

1 - WB
2 - MGM
3 - FOX
4 - Dreamworks
5 - New Line
6 - Disney
7 - WB
8 - Sony
9 - Universal
10 - Paramount
11 - Disney

There really isn't one studio dominating the list. WB and Disney are there twice, but they arent dominating everyone else.

Also, lol, with only 1 movie, Avatar is already number 6 on that list.

Theres no doubt that Fox needs an additional franchise, but they are in better shape that Universal or Paramount (who have now lost Marvel and Transformers after this summer) are

 

[Passdom]

There's a reason they had only one or 2 movies that grossed over 100 million domestically last year. All of their movies did bad in 2010. Their biggest movie was Narnia...and that wasn't even a hit.

Narnia grossed 400 Mil worldwide.

 

[chaseter]

Fox was a distributor of the Star Wars movies. They didn't produce them. George Lucas had full creative control. Although Lucas having full creative control on the prequels is debatable whether that helped those movies or not I would side with the latter.

 

[Passdom]

They are still the official distributor, which means Star Wars is listed under Fox's name. Its the Fox fanfare that opens up Star Wars, not the Luscasfilm one.

Its like debating that Toy Story should get billed under Pixar rather than Disney.

Looking beyond Franchises, at the end of the day, Fox does have the number 1 and 2 highest grossing films of all time. And in the Adjusted top 5, they have 2. In the Adjusted top 25, Fox are the only studio with movies in it dating from the past 20 years, they have 3, except for Universal, which has 1 (Jurassic Park)

You can't really spin Fox as having a poor performance history wise.