Worst studio to produce comic book films?

[SPIDERMAN117]

Me persoanally FOX sucks badly when it come to making movies

 

[boydston_14]

Fox. I can't think of any other that ****s up that bad that much.

 

[Apollo]

yea, they really screwed X-men 3 over after Bryan left.

 

[Dark Victory]

Fox

 

[The Dark Defender]

yea, they really screwed X-men 3 over after Bryan left.

and screwed it up even worse while he was still there.

It baffles me that people that think X2 is a great movie can lambast Rattner for his work on the franchise (which wasn't very good either, but the series was already ****ed by that point anyway.).

 

[odiin]

Lionsgate


...and Fox.

 

[Tony Stark]

and screwed it up even worse while he was still there.

It baffles me that people that think X2 is a great movie can lambast Rattner for his work on the franchise (which wasn't very good either, but the series was already ****ed by that point anyway.).

I think Fox sucks, but X2 was a great film, and I'd say the majority think so based on what people rank as their top comic films on this site.

X3 sucked because they took one of the top saga's in X-men lore (the Phoenix saga) and reduced it to the last 10 minutes of the film. Killing Cyke and Prof X was lame too.

 

[The Dark Defender]

I think Fox sucks, but X2 was a great film, and I'd say the majority think so based on what people rank as their top comic films on this site.

X3 sucked because they took one of the top saga's in X-men lore (the Phoenix saga) and reduced it to the last 10 minutes of the film. Killing Cyke and Prof X was lame too.

Yes, the majority does think so, which is exactly what I was saying baffles me.

They almost no characterization, they're visually mediocre, the direction is as bland as it gets...half hour eps of the animated series captured the essence of these characters better than an entire film (or two) by Singer did.
Storm, Jean and Cyc couldn't have been more interchangeable and vapid, Rogue and Iceman contribute nothing to the team, Wolverine gets his ass handed to him everytime he fights a mutant and is one of the worst cliche'd "bad-asses" I've ever seen in a movie...

I have no idea why so many people support those damn movies. It's tough for me to express in words how much I hate them. That series was decimated long before Rattner ever touched it.
I'd really love to know what people think is so great about them, but whenever I ask, all people do is tell how popular they are.

Rattner ruined the X-Men series in the same way that someone ruins two giant piles of **** by dumping another pile of **** on top of them.

 

[BMM]

Eh, I like the first two movies fine. Thematically, the first few scenes of X-Men (2000) offer a Hell of a lot more than the books of the era, which had reduced the X-Men to caricatures of themselves, especially by the time The Animated Series had finished its run. I would say the interactions between some of the characters, like Charles Xavier and Magneto, are great and just as good as any in the books, and I challenge anyone to prove otherwise. In fact, I would say their interactions are more dynamic than most in the comic book movie genre. I applaud the direction in which the creative team takes characters like Rogue. For instance, rather than automatically reduce Rogue to the big breasted, one-liner machine most fanboys mischaracterize her as, the creative team takes its time to illustrate the mutant plight, while simultaneously giving Rogue and the audience the classic introduction to the X-Men the likes of which Jean Grey and Jubilee receive in the books and on television. Between Magneto and Stryker, I think the movies offer some of the best villains and avoid the cliché “here today, gone tomorrow” villains that riddled the genre for years. I also enjoy the fact that the movies actually improve upon some of the characters. In the books, characters like Mystique and Pyro are unbearably inept and worthless, but, somehow, after a few hours in the movies, are far more entertaining and interesting than their comic book counterparts. Visually, save for the uniforms, the production design is dead-on, again offering improvements, when trademarks like Cerebro, The School, and the X-Jet could have been a mess. I like the fact that the movies return to a more grounded approach, which the books could take a cue from every once in a while. Overall, I think the biggest flaw of X-Men and X2 is that they don’t push things far enough. What’s there works for the most part, but it needs to be further explored.

That said, as of late, I think Fox produces some of the worst superhero movies. Beyond X-Men and X2, I haven’t really enjoyed any of the studio’s recent entries to the genre as much as I do others (although Warner Bros. has produced some stinkers in its time).

 

[ord0g]

Lionsgate


...and Fox.

Agreed.

 

[The Dark Defender]

Eh, I like the first two movies fine. Thematically, the first few scenes of X-Men (2000) offer a Hell of a lot more than the books of the era, which had reduced the X-Men to caricatures of themselves, especially by the time The Animated Series had finished its run. I would say the interactions between some of the characters, like Charles Xavier and Magneto, are great and just as good as any in the books, and I challenge anyone to prove otherwise. In fact, I would say their interactions are more dynamic than most in the comic book movie genre. I applaud the direction in which the creative team takes characters like Rogue. For instance, rather than automatically reduce Rogue to the big breasted, one-liner machine most fanboys mischaracterize her as, the creative team takes its time to illustrate the mutant plight, while simultaneously giving Rogue and the audience the classic introduction to the X-Men the likes of which Jean Grey and Jubilee receive in the books and on television. Between Magneto and Stryker, I think the movies offer some of the best villains and avoid the cliché “here today, gone tomorrow” villains that riddled the genre for years. I also enjoy the fact that the movies actually improve upon some of the characters. In the books, characters like Mystique and Pyro are unbearably inept and worthless, but, somehow, after a few hours in the movies, are far more entertaining and interesting than their comic book counterparts. Visually, save for the uniforms, the production design is dead-on, again offering improvements, when trademarks like Cerebro, The School, and the X-Jet could have been a mess. I like the fact that the movies return to a more grounded approach, which the books could take a cue from every once in a while. Overall, I think the biggest flaw of X-Men and X2 is that they don’t push things far enough. What’s there works for the most part, but it needs to be further explored.

That said, as of late, I think Fox produces some of the worst superhero movies. Beyond X-Men and X2, I haven’t really enjoyed any of the studio’s recent entries to the genre as much as I do others (although Warner Bros. has produced some stinkers in its time).

Thematically they're fine, the problem I had with the movies wasn't how they dealt with the racism themes, it's how little I cared about these people.
They're almost entirely void of distinct personality characteristics.

Visually the films are directed in a very unimaginitive point and shoot way save for a few scenes.
Rogue, regardless of how she looks or talks, contributes nothing to the team at all, all she did throughout two entire films was clumbsily land the X-Jet (which anybody could've done) and engage in a very uninvolving puppy love story with the horribly wooden Iceman, who also contributes nothing to the team.

Pyro may be better than his comic book counterpart since his comic book counterpart was basically a 1D lackey (same with Toad), but Mystique wasn't even close. She's the blue chick that kills people...that's it, she has no personality whatsoever; nor do Cyclopes, Jean, or Storm.

Xavior and Magneto were perfect, the problem I had was how unbelievably vapid and horrendously undeverloped to the point of absurdity the people working for them on both sides were.
Stryker was good, Nightcrawler was passable, other than that these people, from a personality perspective, are completely interchangeable because they really don't even have any distinct characteristics other than their powers.

Awful, awful films; the Fantastic Four films that people love to lambast so much have far better characterization than Singer's X-Men films, loaded with a bunch of interchangeable dullards.

 

[donk70]

Warner Brothers

Hands down

 

[matrix_ghost]

Fox hands down. I guess the main thing with Fox is that they want get their investment back and if that means alienating the fans just so they can make an extra few millions , they'll do just that.

 

[The Chris]

Fox, and it seems like that couldn't care less. Most of their films suck anyway.

 

[SPIDERMAN117]

Warner Brothers

Hands down

The majoirty of Warner Bos films are good.
__Good________________
Batman 89
Batman Returns
Batman Begins
The Dark Knight
300
Superman
Superman II

 

[gdatruth]

is this a trick question? the correct answer is Fox.

Daredevil
Fanastic Four I & II
Elektra
X-3

 

[Raiden]

The majoirty of Warner Bos films are good.
__Good________________
Batman 89
Batman Returns
Batman Begins
The Dark Knight
300
Superman
Superman II

Bad
Batman Forever
Batman & Robin
Catwoman
Superman III
Superman IV
Steel
Supergirl

Mediocre
Superman Returns


But I'll vote for Fox, because aside from Singer's X-Men movies, the rest pretty much suck. X3, DD, Elektra, F4, and F4 (which I'd classify as mediocre instead of bad) are all subpar films. I just hope they won't screw up Wolverine as well.

 

[odiin]

Bad
Batman Forever
Batman & Robin
Catwoman
Superman III
Superman IV
Steel
Supergirl

Mediocre
Superman Returns


But I'll vote for Fox, because aside from Singer's X-Men movies, the rest pretty much suck. X3, DD, Elektra, F4, and F4 (which I'd classify as mediocre instead of bad) are all subpar films. I just hope they won't screw up Wolverine as well.

That's still a hell of a lot better than Fox's track record, and at least when WB's movies are good, they're REALLY good, even Fox's GOOD comic book movies really aren't even that great.

 

[Symbiotic]

We all know that FOX sucks the worst.

 

[Tony Stark]

The majoirty of Warner Bos films are good.
__Good________________
Batman 89
Batman Returns
Batman Begins
The Dark Knight
300
Superman
Superman II

Superman II was not good. It was the ultimate in cheese, and had little if nothing to do with Superman. Out of all the powers that Superman has, the final battle involves Superman ripping the "S" of his chest, shooting laser beams out of his finger, and an ability to create duplicates of himself.

Terrence Stamp would give William Shatner a run for his money on worst overacting job of all time.

 

[KenK]

Say what you will about Warner Bros, but they have repeatedly raised the standards for comic book movies. The first Superman (despite no again very well) made leaps and bounds in how comic book movies were viewed. The scale had never been as epic as the first Superman was, the effort put into the effects had never been that extreme, they had never been so ambitious in bringing a superhero to life.

Tim Burton's Batman redefined the publics view of Batman in live-action. People who saw the 60s series as a joke were blown away by the sheer darkness of what Burton did. And the film would clearly proof to be one of the influences when it came to Batman The Animated Series, in terms of aesthetics (30s clothes and cars mixed with contemporary technology, so there's no clearly defined time period), music and overall atmosphere.

And again with Batman Begins(and moreso The Dark Knight), the levels of depth in the story, the whole scope of the film, the ultimately resolution and the multiple character arcs, it's truly epic filmmaking that feels incredibly real. And from a commercial standpoint, this movie is still making box office history almost every day since its been released. The film's been out a little under a month, and is already surpassing what the first Spider-Man did in its entire domestic run.

Warner Bros. still needs to move on some long-in-development projects with other characters that many have been waiting for, but there's no denying what they've done historically when it comes to their success with comic book movies.

Fox can't make the same claim. Beyond that, they insist on shooting themselves in the foot when anyone with sense could tell when they were screwing up. Say what you want about Mark Steven Johnson, but a lot of people had to take back some of the flack they gave him for Daredevil, after the director's cut came out. I know most people will still say it's a ****ty movie, but one of the main complaints critics had was the lack of story. And Johnson, as we would discover, had a story for Daredevil, but FOX couldn't be bothered with it, and had half an hour's worth of footage pertaining to said story removed.

The first X-Men, watching the deleted scens, I was baffled as to why they were cut. The would have only added about five minutes to the runtime of the film, but the thing was, they were all great character moments. The antagonism between Cyclops and Wolverine was set up brilliantly, but the scene removed lines of dialogue to the point that in the theatrical version, it doesn't even make sense anymore. There's an obvious gap in the dialogue. Then you've got scenes with Jean and Xavier that would have served two very important functions; established the father/daughter relationship between Jean and Xavier, and would have further addressed Jean's insecurities about her powers, and Xavier's fear that she might lose control. From day one, Singer had a very specific idea of where he wanted to take the characters, epsecially Jean, as was evident in X2. Even little things like Rogue asking Storm if she could be cured and Storm having to break it to her that that wasn't going to happen. The most infuriating thing is to know that these scenes were filmed and intended for the finished product, and managed to do so much with so little, but FOX couldn't see past their own greed. Which is crazy because Tom Rothman never had any faith in the film anyway.

 

[Kent Allard]

Warner Brothers deserves no credit for Superman: The Movie. The Salkinds basically had to cut a deal where if the movie bombed they would be the ones to lose money, but if it did well everyone made money. All credit for the [first two] Superman movies should deservedly go to the Salkinds and Donner.

[What's more, when the Salkinds got the rights - Warner Brothers didn't think you could do a superhero movie/show as anything but campy {like the 60s Batman} so they let the Salkinds pay to get the rights for over 20 years. But after the money started rolling in from the movies and eventually the Superboy TV series the execs at WB got greedy and used the courts to get the Superman rights back far earlier than they had agreed too.]

 

[Kable24]

Without a doubt it's these *****ebags.

Man Thing
The Punisher (even though Artisan made the movie before the buyout)
Punisher War Zone
I'm sure they will ruin The Spirit and Conan

 

[3dman27]

i' agree with those who think fox is worst

 

[KenK]

Without a doubt it's these *****ebags.

Man Thing
The Punisher (even though Artisan made the movie before the buyout)
Punisher War Zone
I'm sure they will ruin The Spirit and Conan

Two of the movies you're citing having even come out yet! And Conan hasn't even been made!!!