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

Status
Not open for further replies.
That's why that list is unadjusted. Adjusted would look something like this

1. Star Wars (1977) - $1,416,050,800
2. The Sound of Music (1965) - $1,132,202,200
3. Empire Strikes Back (1980) - $780,536,100
4. Avatar (2009) - $773,179,400
5. Return of the Jedi (1983) - $747,772,300
6. Star Wars: Episode I (1999) - $674,365,200
7. Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (1969) - $560,934,900
8. Independence Day (1996) - $550,687,600
9. Home Alone (1990) - $538,486,900
10. The Robe (1953) - $520,363,600

Avatar is still mighty impressive! And George Lucas still owns with 4 out of the 10.

You know that is still 4 Star Wars movies on that version of the list, which is great. I laughed that by those numbers, Home Alone was that watched.
 
Home Alone was HUGE back when it was released. Plus it featured another classic score by John Williams
 
An interesting comparison between the big movie companies.

http://www.the-numbers.com/interactive/newsStory.php?newsID=5754


This isn't surprising. It's true that Fox has been the most successful studio financially from 2006-2010. 20th century Fox has arguably been the most successful studio financially from 2000-2010. It's the reason Tom Rothman has been voted one of the smartest businessman in the movie industry more than once. Of course any businessman can temporarily make a profit through hiring cheap talent and excessive micro-managing. This is something the company I work has done for a decade and we are suffering for it now. We've lost stockholder confidence, client service is in decline, and people are being fired at an alarming rate.

However, in reality all these stats do is make Fox look good from 2006-2010. What the numbers have done is something many businesses do to try and keep stockholder confidence by hiding a failed financial year or years. My dad's company used this method to stay out of bankruptcy and show a cumulative profit for years. Unfortunately, this plan will eventually fail if a company continues to sell products deficient in quality and innovation. The issue real issue I was commenting on was how Fox has done from 2008-2010. Near the end of 2008 Tom Rothman and Peter Chernin were both in the hot heat because of Fox's worst year in a decade.

http://defamer.gawker.com/5107967/fox-upheavalwatch-are-peter-chernin-and-tom-rothman-on-the-way-out

Rothman almost left but, Peter Chernin became the fall guy and was forced to resign.

A wiser person than myself told me that statistics don't reveal everything about a system but, they don't lie. Out of all the major studios Fox and Universal Studios have had the fewest films break the 100 million dollar barrier domestically since 2008. There's no reason for either studio to brag about such an accomplishment.
 
You Fox haters are funny,forgive me for not jumping on the hate bandwagon.
I blame Fox for saving Comic book movies in 2000 after WB almost killed the genre 1997
 
You Fox haters are funny,forgive me for not jumping on the hate bandwagon.
I blame Fox for saving Comic book movies in 2000 after WB almost killed the genre 1997

You don't like comic book movies? You do know that Superherohype started off as Spider-man Hype to capitalize on the Spider-man movie, right?
 
most fox movies suck
idk if its a case of them micro managing....
cast and crew pissed off at the studio
or fox just greenlighting any peice of **** they can get a summary of instead of reading the scripts first
 
It's true that the WB almost destroyed the comic book movie genre with Batman and Robin yet the same studio should be given credit for being one of the first studios to support the development of the first comic book films. The WB distributed the first 2 superman films. Developed the first two Batman films when no other studio was making comic book films. Other studios took notice of what the WB was doing and they started to invest in comic book films in the early mid and late 90s. What was Fox doing in the 90s while Disney released Dick Tracy/The Crow or while Columbia Pictures released Men in Black?

20th century gets way too much credit for inciting interest in comic book films when the successful Blade was released 2 years earlier than X-Men and it was developed by New Line Cinema who just happened to get acquired by Time Warner in 1996. The Warner's clearly deserve more credit then they receive for their influence on comic book movies.
 
It's true that the WB almost destroyed the comic book movie genre with Batman and Robin yet the same studio should be given credit for being one of the first studios to support the development of the first comic book films. The WB distributed the first 2 superman films. Developed the first two Batman films when no other studio was making comic book films. Other studios took notice of what the WB was doing and they started to invest in comic book films in the early mid and late 90s. What was Fox doing in the 90s while Disney released Dick Tracy/The Crow or while Columbia Pictures released Men in Black?

20th century gets way too much credit for inciting interest in comic book films when the successful Blade was released 2 years earlier than X-Men and it was developed by New Line Cinema who just happened to get acquired by Time Warner in 1996. The Warner's clearly deserve more credit then they receive for their influence on comic book movies.

In Superman's case which was the one that paved the way and started it all, the credit for that goes to Ilya Salkind.

WB thought at the time (just like everyone else), that there was no potential in a big budget Superman/Superhero film and no one would take it seriously. That's why the studio sold the Superman film rights to the Salkind's.

The Salkinds found financing for the film on their own and brought the project together.

After the success of Superman, that paved the way for the Batman franchise, etc.
 
In Superman's case which was the one that paved the way and started it all, the credit for that goes to Ilya Salkind.

WB thought at the time (just like everyone else), that there was no potential in a big budget Superman/Superhero film and no one would take it seriously. That's why the studio sold the Superman film rights to the Salkind's.

The Salkinds found financing for the film on their own and brought the project together.

After the success of Superman, that paved the way for the Batman franchise, etc.

Yes the studio sold the rights to the Salkinds who deserve most of the credit. However, the WB still distributed the first two superman films so they obvious had some faith that the original superman could be successful.
 
well obviously after they saw how successful the first film was....who wouldn't have done that?
 
It's true that the WB almost destroyed the comic book movie genre with Batman and Robin yet the same studio should be given credit for being one of the first studios to support the development of the first comic book films.

They are. Please don't come here with a selective view of history. There isn't a media or industry individual that would dismiss the merits and milestones of the releases of Superman or Batman.

The WB distributed the first 2 superman films. Developed the first two Batman films when no other studio was making comic book films. Other studios took notice of what the WB was doing and they started to invest in comic book films in the early mid and late 90s. What was Fox doing in the 90s while Disney released Dick Tracy/The Crow or while Columbia Pictures released Men in Black?

While one could make the argument that Dick Tracy's long standing history made it a character worth translating to film, The Crow and Men In Black are perfect examples of films based on comics, where even most comic book fans wouldn't necessarily give a rat's ass about their source material. Both films were treated as starring vehicles they could shape and mold as they saw fit. Neither of those films were made with the thought of, "This is such a well-known character in popular culture!"

20th century gets way too much credit for inciting interest in comic book films when the successful Blade was released 2 years earlier than X-Men and it was developed by New Line Cinema who just happened to get acquired by Time Warner in 1996.

Time-Warner owning New Line when Blade came out doesn't count for squat. Development of that film was handled by producers and executives from New Line that were there long before Time-Warner bought the studio.

As for X-Men, it was a more visible success in regards to a recognizable comic book series being adapted to film. And in the case of Marvel, for them to be one of "The Big Two", it was kind of embarrassing that so many of their film productions couldn't even make it to the big screen, for one reason or another (the main reason being most of the resulting films were cheaply done and profoundly awful). This is mostly what people talk about when they give credit to X-Men. And believe me, there are definitely more people now that give Blade credit as the first Marvel property to be successfully translated to film. (Men In Black doesn't count, the book was an independent , and the rights to the property ultimately ended up under Marvel ownership)

It's not that Fox was ever given credit for movie studios interest in doing comic book films in general. It was more about the resurgence of comic book films (especially for major recognizable characters), following a time when critical praise and commercial returns were beginning to diminish. And again, a lot of those films were more about who the star was, than the actual comic. As successful as The Mask was, that was about giving Jim Carrey full reign to do what he had always done best as a comedian. Timecop was just another Van Damme action flick in his heyday. Barb Wire was about showing off Pamela Anderson when she was immensely popular for Baywatch, and the general public had not yet soured on women with comically huge breast implants. Judge Dredd betrayed one of the key traits of the character by having Sylvester Stallone as its star (granted, I actually like that movie). And even the "great and influential, unjustly overlooked" Warner Bros. cared not for the fact that Shaquille O'Neal had two critically lambasted films where his acting ability was major point of contention, when they decided to unleash Steel upon a movie-going audience that had learned their lesson from those aforementioned bombs.
 
Last edited:
well obviously after they saw how successful the first film was....who wouldn't have done that?

Warner Brothers distributed the first Superman movie. In fact they had so much confidence in it that they decided to distribute it in foreign countries.

They are. Please don't come here with a selective view of history. There isn't a media or industry individual that would dismiss the merits and milestones of the releases of Superman or Batman.

Okay? I was merely indirectly responding to a poster who posted a message which turned out to be a very bizarre example of sarcasm if that was truly his intention. I doubt that was his intention because there's some truth to the WB almost killing the comic book genre with one of the worst comic book films ever made.

Of course if Batman and Robin had destroyed the genre it would have been temporary. An overall studio interest in developing comic book films was initiated in the late 80s and it continued to grow in the mid 90s. One failed comic book film wouldn't halt all studio interest.


Furthermore, there's even a shred of truth to the statement Zant made about Fox. Yes, it's true that in some sense Fox's X-Men may have prevented studios from temporarily losing interest in developing comic book films. However, in reality this was never a genre that needed saving. It needed to evolve. Both Blade and X-Men helped the comic book genre succeed at this.


Overall, I'm not sure what aspect of Zant's post was meant to be sarcastic because both statements have some truth to them. I'm also, not sure what you mean by me having a selective view of history. If anyone has a selective view of history it's you for thinking the only reason people in this thread are angry at Fox simply for their bad comic book films. What angered people in the past was Fox's determination to micro-manage all their sci-fi/action/fantasy property rights while hiring studio hacks. Ruining once popular franchises(Aliens/Predator) and releasing a significant number of films that the general public lacks interest in didn't help Fox's reputation.


It's no coincidence that out of the 6 major studios they had the 2nd fewest number of films to break 100 million domestically since 2008. On a personal note Avatar was the first Fox film I watched in the theaters since 2006 because it didn't have the look of the more recent garbage Fox was spewing out at that time.



While one could make the argument that Dick Tracy's long standing history made it a character worth translating to film, The Crow and Men In Black are perfect examples of films based on comics, where even most comic book fans wouldn't necessarily give a rat's ass about their source material. Both films were treated as starring vehicles they could shape and mold as they saw fit. Neither of those films were made with the thought of, "This is such a well-known character in popular culture!"


That's an interesting statement to make. Here's some information for you. Wizard magazine's(a magazine for comic book/sci-fi fans) 2008 issue has a list of the top 50 best comic books ever had these two films listed around 25 out of 50 two years ago. Making this list doesn't necessarily mean that a comic book translation was great but, being around the top 25 comic book films of all time is not two shabby. Also, both films were commercial and critically acclaimed success stories.


If the statement you made about The Crow and Men in Black were true the studios developing these adaptations wouldn't have had any concern for following the source material at all. I've read the original comic book of the Crow. The movie took liberties with characters and certain scenes but, the setting and the core plot of the comic translated well. I'm not as familiar with the Men in Black comic as The Crow. What I do know is the film at least got the tone of the comic right and kept most of the core characters with the same names.

I will reiterate that your suggestion is an interesting theory but, there's no evidence that proves you are right. People who are fanboys/fangirls usually find out all the background information on these types of films well in advance before they're released. Their decision to watch will depend on how strong the source material is and how well it's being adapted. If The Crow and MIB had weak source material the majority of comic fans wouldn't have given seeing these films a second thought. However, getting decent recognition in a fanboy/fangirl magazine suggests that comic fans probably cared about the source material in both films.

Time-Warner owning New Line when Blade came out doesn't count for squat. Development of that film was handled by producers and executives from New Line that were there long before Time-Warner bought the studio.

Blade coming out 2 years after Time-Warner purchased New Line does count for something. Apparently Time Warner was inteligent enough to realize that New Line owned the property rights to some very marketable franchises(Blade/Lord of the Rings). They also, helped New Line promote the movie so of course they get some credit. Of course if your reasoning was true maybe Disney shouldn't have made a boat load of money off of Iron Man 2 since they owned the rights less than a year of it's release. An argument can be made in Disney's favor that the acquisition of Marvel entertainment helped stockholder confidence and even played a minor role in marketing Iron Man 2.


As for X-Men, it was a more visible success in regards to a recognizable comic book series being adapted to film. And in the case of Marvel, for them to be one of "The Big Two", it was kind of embarrassing that so many of their film productions couldn't even make it to the big screen, for one reason or another (the main reason being most of the resulting films were cheaply done and profoundly awful). This is mostly what people talk about when they give credit to X-Men.

No argument here.






And believe me, there are definitely more people now that give Blade credit as the first Marvel property to be successfully translated to film.

This is subjective. If you're referring to comic book fans I would agree with you. If you are referring to the general public I disagree. X-Men was the first comic book film to show the Marvel logo before the beginning of these films. I know plenty of non comic book fans who didn't have a clue that Blade was a comic character until I told them.



(Men In Black doesn't count, the book was an independent , and the rights to the property ultimately ended up under Marvel ownership)

What do you by "Men in Black doesn't count"? It was an independent comic book company named Aircel. It doesn't matter that Marvel acquired it nor would it have mattered had another prestigous comic company grabbed the property rights before it was adapted into a film. Touchstone pictures didn't wait for The Crow to be taken over by one of the major comic book companies before trying to adapt it to film. I really have no idea what point you are trying to make here? My original assertion was that Fox was doing nothing at the time many 90s comic films(The Crow/Men in Black/Dick Tracy) were being released. Comic book company property rights was not the focal point of the discussion.


It's not that Fox was ever given credit for movie studios interest in doing comic book films in general. It was more about the resurgence of comic book films (especially for major recognizable characters), following a time when critical praise and commercial returns were beginning to diminish. And again, a lot of those films were more about who the star was, than the actual comic. As successful as The Mask was, that was about giving Jim Carrey full reign to do what he had always done best as a comedian. Timecop was just another Van Damme action flick in his heyday. Barb Wire was about showing off Pamela Anderson when she was immensely popular for Baywatch, and the general public had not yet soured on women with comically huge breast implants. Judge Dredd betrayed one of the key traits of the character by having Sylvester Stallone as its star (granted, I actually like that movie).

Agreed except I thought Judge Dredd not only took too many liberties from the comic but, was an overall piece of crap.



And even the "great and influential, unjustly overlooked" Warner Bros. cared not for the fact that Shaquille O'Neal had two critically lambasted films where his acting ability was major point of contention, when they decided to unleash Steel upon a movie-going audience that had learned their lesson from those aforementioned bombs.

Show me the quote where I said the WB had never developed any bad comic book movies. Every major studio has made at least one forgettable comic book film.
 
This is subjective. If you're referring to comic book fans I would agree with you. If you are referring to the general public I disagree. X-Men was the first comic book film to show the Marvel logo before the beginning of these films. I know plenty of non comic book fans who didn't have a clue that Blade was a comic character until I told them.
It was actually Spider-Man.
 
It was actually Spider-Man.

It's been a long time since I saw X-Men in the theater, on tv, and DVD. You're probably right about this information even though I always thought the Marvel logo was shown at the beginning of X-Men. My mistake.



There was no justifiable reason for bumping this thread.


Now seems like an appropriate time to address this quote. The justifiable reasoning for bumping this thread was to discuss how The Full List of Crimes committed by Rothman have hurt the studio financially for the past couple of years.

Thereby, anyone who believed there was no justifiable reason for bumping the thread wouldn't have continued to post messages in here if they truly felt the discussions were irrelevant.

In reality some of the 20th century Fox apologists like this thread because it gives them a direct outlet to focus their frustrations on those who criticize Fox. That's one of the reasons why they post messages in here.
 
Well lets add to the list Fox causing Aronofsky to leave Wolverine. Now that movie is going to blow chunks. I won't even bother. My interest is 0%.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
200,509
Messages
21,742,876
Members
45,573
Latest member
vortep88
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"