Tom Rothman leaving Fox

[Gianakin_]

Only when Hollywood stars are aligned, I'm afraid.

 

[matrix_ghost]

Only when Hollywood stars are aligned, I'm afraid.

Lol.But seriously though. Look the TDK and TDKR. They have made some changes to Bane. Doesn't make him any less threatening.
That's what i'm saying. When you look at the commercial properties that Fox churned out under Rothman's regime , there was potential to have some pretty solid franchises. They may not have been blockbusters on scale of Avengers or Batman but i do believe that those movies could've made some good money.
Max Payne or Hitman could've made Fast and the Furious or Bourne money.

 

[Gianakin_]

So wait, are we disagreeing or agreeing here? What I've been saying is that Nolan took liberties with the mythos and its characters, which were of artistic nature. Ridley Scott did changes in the scripts he was attached to direct. Both directors did some changes that panned out and some that didn't.

Difference is, Charles Roven didn't meddle with Nolan and see where that got both of them, whereas Rothman never left one director alone to do his damn job and as a result he killed many projects' viability. He killed entire franchises, ffs! Point? Artistic choices trumped money ones.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

So ?
Yes he created Searchlight but he also screwed up many properties.
Chaseter is right. The bad stuff outweighs the good things he's done.

Just pointing it out. I'm not defending the guy, but at the same time I'm not condemming him because, like I said before, he was getting smarter and less involved, because that ideal worked for Searchlight when they were doing much better than 20th Century Fox was doing during the mid-to-late 00s.

Still, changes for artistic reasons >>>> changes for money.

The reasons for the changes don't really matter if the changes end up being good.

 

[Gianakin_]

Indeed. And Rothman had struck out too many times.

 

[dude stannis]

Eh , i would be more impressed if they succeeded to a certain extent.

Of course, who wouldn't?

 

[dark_b]

So wait, are we disagreeing or agreeing here? What I've been saying is that Nolan took liberties with the mythos and its characters, which were of artistic nature. Ridley Scott did changes in the scripts he was attached to direct. Both directors did some changes that panned out and some that didn't.

Difference is, Charles Roven didn't meddle with Nolan and see where that got both of them, whereas Rothman never left one director alone to do his damn job and as a result he killed many projects' viability. He killed entire franchises, ffs! Point? Artistic choices trumped money ones.

there is a big difference with Nolan and Scott. Nolan knows what changes will be good for the general public and what not. Nolan is a crowdpleaser. Scott is not. this is not about a good or bad director. Nolan will make sure that the movie will be for the general public. script,editing,...... with Scott you wont get this

Kingdom of heaven could never make a profit. the directors cut would be an even bigger bomb. is the movie good? of course it is. you can call it a masterpieace. Charles Roven knew that what Nolan will do will be for the general public.

Rothman was a big villain. but not with Scott movies IMO.

 

[Gianakin_]

That's a fair point, but the difference of budget Nolan and Scott got is indicative of the difference between them. No need to breath down Scott's neck, too.

 

[dark_b]

i think they should just told Scott that they can not realese the directors cut to the public. before filming started.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

Indeed. And Rothman had struck out too many times.

Pretty much. He among others screwed Fox over many times during 2005-2009 by having his ego inflated by media. He thought his decisions could sell movies when it ended up hurting them. It was like when Ted Turner managed the Braves for a game. It's crazy how some execs think they're filmmaker.

But alas, after Wolverine Rothman finally saw the error of his ways but the even after First Class, Rise of the Planets of the Apes, and Avatar the cut was too deep with fans to mend.

 

[Gianakin_]

Well, at that point Cameron was someone who wouldn't be micro-managed either way and XMFC wasn't SUCH a big hit. I'll give you RotPotA but, like you said, it was too late.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

Well, yeah.

Cameron's one of two guys that can't be micro-managed (The other being George Lucas, for the worse haha) and Avatar's release combined with Wolverine self-destruction is most likely what changed his decision-making.

 

[Gianakin_]

The other being George Lucas, for the worse haha

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

Keep in mind that when he didn't have full control for Episode IV, was stressed every day, and was nearly fired when he made the first Star Wars, and it ended up being a much better directing effort than the prequels. Not as much overracting.

 

[Gianakin_]

Keep in mind that when he didn't have full control for Episode IV, was stressed every day, and was nearly fired when he made the first Star Wars, and it ended up being a much better directing effort than the prequels. Not as much overracting.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

Milk was a bad choice.

 

[chaseter]

Holy crap, I never knew Godwin's law existed until I had to google your post! That's glorious. Should I have said Bin Laden, or do we want to enforce Godwin's law?



They all fall under the vague category of 'scumbag'.

Haha. I was totally joking but I learned something today thanks to Parker Wayne.