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

[I Am The Knight]

Avatar may turn out to be a good movie but, I'm concerned about the budget. It was rumored to be somewhere in the range of 250-300million without marketing costs a few months ago. The movie doesn't come out for another year and the budget may continue to skyrocket out of control. This film may not be very profitable for Fox unless it easily breaks the 400million barrier domestically.

Well that's the thing, isn't it. At it's time, Titanic's 200 million budget was outrageous. But it paid off for them, so they are thinking that a 300 million Avatar will prove as succesful. I'm not so sure about it's BO potential, but recouping that budget might be harder than they think. The movie itself should be top notch, though.

 

[Nivek]

The name Cameron will bring me to a theatre, Fox shouldn't have any issue funding this project.

 

[Timstuff]

Avatar may turn out to be a good movie but, I'm concerned about the budget. It was rumored to be somewhere in the range of 250-300million without marketing costs a few months ago. The movie doesn't come out for another year and the budget may continue to skyrocket out of control. This film may not be very profitable for Fox unless it easily breaks the 400million barrier domestically.

From what I've read of Avatar's story, there's very little chance that the general audience is going to go out in droves to see it. If the reports are to be believed, it's pretty much Dances with Wolves with a sci-fi twist, and I'm really not sure how well that's going to go over with the average viewer. Heck, even I don't really find the movie's story very appealing, and I'm actually planning on seeing it.

I think either Fox is going to stand back and let Cameron make his movie even if it ends up being unprofitable, or they're going to watch Cameron's cut, say "no-one is going to watch this," and then cut it up to make it less controversial. In the latter scenario, the film probably will turn in some decent returns for Fox, but they'll undoubtedly be chastised by the movie's fans for "butchering it."

Basically, I see the following 3 scenarios:

A: The movie releases uncut, and underperforms; fans blame Fox for mismarketing it.
B: The movie releases uncut, and underperforms; fans blame the general audience for being "artistically blind"
C: The movie releases with cuts ordered by Rothman, and it brings in profit; fans decry Fox for ruining Cameron's artistic vision

I don't want to sound like Johnny Raincloud, but I think Fox may have a "Superman Returns" on their hands. They're giving a director 300 million to make a "personal movie" simply because his track record is immaculate, and the final product might not be something they can really sell to the audience. When you have a movie that expensive, it has to make money, even if you have to piss some people off to do it. It's a lose-lose situation for Fox, so they ultimately have to err in favor of the bottom line.

 

[Spade]

Folks will show up for Avatar, partly for the technical achievement and partly because it's got power suits versus flying pterodactyls (if the plot points from the scriptment are still present).

 

[Timstuff]

Special effects and visual razzle dazzle aren't enough to get butts into seats anymore. Sky Captain had spitfire fighter planes vs. robots, and that wasn't enough to get people to watch it. It really comes down to this: if I had to describe in one sentence what the movie was about, would I be able to get people to watch it? To quote screenwriter Blake Snyder:

If you've ever had the honor, if you've ever been the one elected to read the film choices for a group of gathered friends, congratulations, you have now had the experience of "pitching" a movie -- just like the pros. And just like the pros, you have been faced with the same problem. Yes, the film stars George Clooney; sure, it's got amazing special effects; of course, Ebert and Roper give it two thumbs up.

But what is it?

If you can't answer the question, you know it pretty quickly. If what the movie is about isn't clear from the poster and the title, what are you going to say to describe it? Usually what you're left with, standing there, newspaper in hand, is telling your friends everything about the movie that it's not. What you heard. What People Magazine said. Some cockeyed retelling of the plot that the star revealed on Letterman. And odds are that at the end of that rather feeble explanation, your friends will say what filmmakers everywhere fear most: "What else is playing?"

Avatar most certainly fits the bill of high-concept Sci-Fi, but in some ways it seems like it's borderline convoluted. If I were to describe what I know about it in one sentence, it would be as dull and flat as its logline on IMDB: A band of humans are pitted in a battle against a distant planet's indigenous population. That could be the plot of pretty much every sci-fi movie of the last 20 years. If I try to explain what makes it unique though, I'd practically have to give a power point presentation.

I'm sure that this movie was easy for Cameron to pitch to Fox, because let's face it, he directed the highest-grossing movie of all time, so the studios were obviously going to fight tooth and nail to get his next project, no matter how outlandish it was. That's the real reason why great directors can make great films, but then make flops later on. The studios see that they know how to rake in the dough, give them the keys to the Camero, and tell them "drive anywhere you want." They sometimes let go of their typically staunch sense of objectivity, and forget that it is possible for even a great director to take the train off the rails without someone keeping an eye on things. Two examples of this unfortunate phenomena in recent years would be M. Night Shyamalan and Bryan Singer. They earned the right to be trusted, but then they blew it, which in turn only makes studios less likely to give full creative control to directors.

 

[bullets]

the release of the trailer should be a good indication on how a general audience might react to this film .

 

[Jordacar]

Has anyone mentioned making Mathieu Kassovitz's life a living hell while making Babylon AD? Can we lay that at Rothman's feet?

 

[dude stannis]

Rothman on the next Planet of the Apes movie:

“We are very close at Fox on a new Apes script- this one a kind of prequel story before the first story, with a return to the social thematics that mark the first one, but with an entirely contemporary setting - Earth 2009.”

******.

 

[Rac]

Has anyone mentioned making Mathieu Kassovitz's life a living hell while making Babylon AD? Can we lay that at Rothman's feet?

Yes and yes.

 

[Theweepeople]

Two examples of this unfortunate phenomena in recent years would be M. Night Shyamalan and Bryan Singer. They earned the right to be trusted, but then they blew it, which in turn only makes studios less likely to give full creative control to directors.

I agree that both earned the right to be trusted but, I always thought the WB was making a mistake in agreeing to Singer's Script. The script in many ways was a rehash of the first Donner superman film. The original Superman films have glaring flaws and have not stood the test of time.

I remember reading an article about Alan Horn initally suggesting to Singer that the franchise should be rebooted but, eventually gave in to Bryan's wishes.

 

[Halcohol]

Did anyone say "rapes babies" yet?

 

[Bubastis]

Bump for justice.

Does anybody know what involvement he had with Twilight?

 

[Theweepeople]

Bump for justice.

Does anybody know what involvement he had with Twilight?

Twilight wasn't made by Fox. It was made by an independent company called Summit Entertainment that works with Universal.


In other news The day the earth stood still is Fox's current boxoffice disappointment which won't make back it's budget through it's domestic run.

 

[Anita18]

In other news The day the earth stood still is Fox's current boxoffice disappointment which won't make back it's budget through it's domestic run.

Karma, karma.

Although I dunno if TDTESS had production problems thanks to Fox, and of course I feel bad for everyone behind the scenes who worked on it, but...who cares? Fox is once again losing money! Maybe one of these days, they'll keep their filthy hands off of a production.

James Cameron could always use a little reining in, though. Eh, it's already pretty clear that Fox hasn't been very smart recently about these things...I don't think any non-sequel deserves to have a $250-million+ budget. Well, I don't think ANY movie deserves that, but at least you could see the logic in getting one for a sequel if the first one did gangbusters.

 

[[A]]

I just read they already got their budget back--the movie was cheap (for current standars): $80 mil

 

[Shifty]

I just read they already got their budget back--the movie was cheap (for current standars): $80 mil

It has with the international box office but a movie with that kind of budget should do well enough in North America to not rely on the international box office. But all of Fox's movies this year It had a 66% drop in its second weekend and with more movies out on Christmas its doubtful it will it will reach $80 million in North America.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

^Excellent news, the less Fox make the better.

 

[chaseter]

It is amazing how teenagers and 20-somethings on here have better movie business saavy than Mr. Tom Rothman...ok not really because he is an idiot.

 

[Jordacar]

It has with the international box office but a movie with that kind of budget should do well enough in North America to not rely on the international box office. But all of Fox's movies this year It had a 66% drop in its second weekend and with more movies out on Christmas its doubtful it will it will reach $80 million in North America.

All of em? Really? Not some or most, but ALL?

 

[DBZ2cool]

All of em? Really? Not some or most, but ALL?

nope he is lying. Fox gets unnecessary hate. What happens in Vegas didn't drop 66% and nor did Horton hears a who.

Fox sucks but spewing crap and lies about them is cheap.

 

[Shifty]

All of em? Really? Not some or most, but ALL?

nope he is lying. Fox gets unnecessary hate. What happens in Vegas didn't drop 66% and nor did Horton hears a who.

Fox sucks but spewing crap and lies about them is cheap.

I'm missing a period and the word "have" in there.

It has with the international box office but a movie with that kind of budget should do well enough in North America to not rely on the international box office. But all of Fox's movies this year have. It had a 66% drop in its second weekend and with more movies out on Christmas its doubtful it will it will reach $80 million in North America.

"It" refers to TDTESS. How could it refer to all of the Fox movies?

 

[dude stannis]

It has with the international box office but a movie with that kind of budget should do well enough in North America to not rely on the international box office. But all of Fox's movies this year It had a 66% drop in its second weekend and with more movies out on Christmas its doubtful it will it will reach $80 million in North America.

But it didn't make it's money back internationally either. It cost $80 million and made $87 million worldwide. It's only made a touch over half it's budget back.

 

[Shifty]

But it didn't make it's money back internationally either. It cost $80 million and made $87 million worldwide. It's only made a touch over half it's budget back.

I know, it needs the international box office with the domestic to make back its budget. An $80 million dollar sci-fi movie shouldn't need both but it does.

Oh and apparently there will be a Family Guy movie on its way...

 

[Infinity9999x]

I know, it needs the international box office with the domestic to make back its budget. An $80 million dollar sci-fi movie shouldn't need both but it does.

Oh and apparently there will be a Family Guy movie on its way...

I wouldn't mind a Family Guy movie, I love that showt:

 

[Sawyer]

Oh, God... a Family Guy movie?! Thats going to be, like, 85 minutes of needless pop culture references and 15 minutes of actual story.