Kevin Feige disbands Marvel's CREATIVE COMMITTEE 1 1

[Bosco685]

I'm not quite sure I like the idea of separating the comic guys from the movie guys completely.

 

Having the comic guys have some say prevents non-comic movie guys from essentially turning comic movies into their multi-million-dollar budget fanfic or having movie guys like that one dude at Sony that wanted the Spidey "Snapchat circle" or EDM playlists or junk like that.

 

You can look at the results so far & be pretty certain that they weren't a huge negative on the end product based on the results & reviews. And while the lack thereof could potentially be a positive, my gut feeling is it's more likely a negative, given the results of all the other studios doing comic book movies that didn't have a bunch of comic guys giving notes & suggestions. My only conclusion based on results & comparing the other studios to marvel is that the comic guys helped keep the movie guys from deviating too far from the comics & it's been a successful, if not always convenient, partnership. The comic guys kept the movie guys honest & the movie guys had access to a wealth of information & a bit of a braintrust to rely on, even if it might have hindered a little bit of creativity.

 

Feige is a comic guy. Just because he wasn't in the publishing side doesn't mean he doesn't know about the characters.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/25/business/media/marvel-with-a-fan-at-the-helm-steers-its-heroes-to-the-screen.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

And judging by how some of the Fox stuff has turned out, with comic writers guiding, I'd much rather have a fan steering the ship.

 

BINGO!

 

Feige was even involved in the early Spider-Man and X-Men productions.

 

“I’m not sure there is a formula or a secret,” said Mr. Feige, who also helped produce the hugely popular “Spider-Man” and “X-Men” movie franchises. “I do know that problems tend to happen when people try and re-invent the wheel. If you actually open the comics, there is a lot of depth there.”

[Doktor]

I'm not quite sure I like the idea of separating the comic guys from the movie guys completely.

 

Having the comic guys have some say prevents non-comic movie guys from essentially turning comic movies into their multi-million-dollar budget fanfic or having movie guys like that one dude at Sony that wanted the Spidey "Snapchat circle" or EDM playlists or junk like that.

 

You can look at the results so far & be pretty certain that they weren't a huge negative on the end product based on the results & reviews. And while the lack thereof could potentially be a positive, my gut feeling is it's more likely a negative, given the results of all the other studios doing comic book movies that didn't have a bunch of comic guys giving notes & suggestions. My only conclusion based on results & comparing the other studios to marvel is that the comic guys helped keep the movie guys from deviating too far from the comics & it's been a successful, if not always convenient, partnership. The comic guys kept the movie guys honest & the movie guys had access to a wealth of information & a bit of a braintrust to rely on, even if it might have hindered a little bit of creativity.

 

Feige is a comic guy. Just because he wasn't in the publishing side doesn't mean he doesn't know about the characters.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/25/business/media/marvel-with-a-fan-at-the-helm-steers-its-heroes-to-the-screen.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

And judging by how some of the Fox stuff has turned out, with comic writers guiding, I'd much rather have a fan steering the ship.

 

On the issue of Feige? I'm not saying he doesn't know his stuff. I'm not saying he's not a big fan. But there's a fine line between fanfic and an adaptation. He's well versed in marvel lore for a Hollywood guy, but at the end of the day, he's still a Hollywood guy.

 

And comparing this committee to Fox is a pretty big stretch. Fox's stuff had 1 comic guy involved. Mark Millar. And while Millar sells books, his grasp of Marvel history & his work has always had more than its share of detractors.

 

On the other hand, the 4 guys on Marvel's committee were the same 4 that were primarily responsible for steering Marvel out of the creative doldrums of the 90's and turned the company around from nearly bankrupt, selling the filing cabinets to make payroll & working in the dark in the offices to keep the electric bill from putting them out of business, and turned the company into a mutli-billion-dollar powerhouse.

 

And on top of their obvious business acumen, they also know their comics pretty much inside & out. They're the guys that have, for 15+ years now, lived and breathed virtually every single part of Marvel comics.

 

The only way I don't have concerns about this is if they're replaced by a group made up of Brevvort, Alonso, Vaughn & Kirkman or something like that.

 

As I said, I'm just concerned by this. I think it's the wrong move in the long run. Yes, it might allow a little more creativity from directors/writers/whatever, but a lot of the "creative license" taken by Hollywood in adapting comics for the movies has historically been pretty negative on the end product.

 

I look at the few data points we have and compare. Fox had 1 comic guy involved with an unknown amount of veto power. Marvel had 4 that apparently had at least a reasonable amount of power. WB has an unknown number in their film division with likely a minimum of power if any. Sony had none. The critical and financial results have thus far supported more comic people with more power. Granted, correlation does not imply causation, but there appears to be a rather stark contrast between results & organizational structure. More comic guys with more power involved has thus far yielded better, more accepted, critically approved films with larger box office results. Eliminating that, I feel, might be a step in the wrong direction.

[Bosco685]

On the issue of Feige? I'm not saying he doesn't know his stuff. I'm not saying he's not a big fan. But there's a fine line between fanfic and an adaptation. He's well versed in marvel lore for a Hollywood guy, but at the end of the day, he's still a Hollywood guy.

 

And comparing this committee to Fox is a pretty big stretch. Fox's stuff had 1 comic guy involved. Mark Millar. And while Millar sells books, his grasp of Marvel history & his work has always had more than its share of detractors.

 

On the other hand, the 4 guys on Marvel's committee were the same 4 that were primarily responsible for steering Marvel out of the creative doldrums of the 90's and turned the company around from nearly bankrupt, selling the filing cabinets to make payroll & working in the dark in the offices to keep the electric bill from putting them out of business, and turned the company into a mutli-billion-dollar powerhouse.

 

And on top of their obvious business acumen, they also know their comics pretty much inside & out. They're the guys that have, for 15+ years now, lived and breathed virtually every single part of Marvel comics.

 

The only way I don't have concerns about this is if they're replaced by a group made up of Brevvort, Alonso, Vaughn & Kirkman or something like that.

 

As I said, I'm just concerned by this. I think it's the wrong move in the long run. Yes, it might allow a little more creativity from directors/writers/whatever, but a lot of the "creative license" taken by Hollywood in adapting comics for the movies has historically been pretty negative on the end product.

 

I look at the few data points we have and compare. Fox had 1 comic guy involved with an unknown amount of veto power. Marvel had 4 that apparently had at least a reasonable amount of power. WB has an unknown number in their film division with likely a minimum of power if any. Sony had none. The critical and financial results have thus far supported more comic people with more power. Granted, correlation does not imply causation, but there appears to be a rather stark contrast between results & organizational structure. More comic guys with more power involved has thus far yielded better, more accepted, critically approved films with larger box office results. Eliminating that, I feel, might be a step in the wrong direction.

 

Feige has been the main person keeping it all aligned, while from what we are learning the Marvel Committee offered mandates and guidelines which led to a few key directors walking away from Marvel. That's not good, as Marvel has many stories to tell that I want to see. And I want to see them in experienced, proven hands. Feige then ends up having to do damage control as the face of Marvel Studios.

 

On the other hand, Fox built up the Marvel Universe it has as something that was going to be closely roped together by a number of creators led by Mark Millar. So though he was the main comic book guy, the Fox 'Dream Team' was more than him.

 

Mark Millar to Oversee Fox’s Marvel Cinematic Universe

 

Millar not only has experience crafting major story arcs and superhero team-ups in the books but it was his Kick- books that brought him close to Matthew Vaughn, who of course, is now intimately involved with the X-Men franchise. With Singer, Vaughn, Millar, Mangold and Trank all potentially working together, Fox has assembled a creative team with strong potential.

 

Coincidentally, Joe Carnahan (Director slated to reboot Daredevil in 2013) is working on adapting Mark Millar’s Nemesis (also a Fox movie) and it all comes full circle.

[fantastic_four]

This is a mistake. He should have changed their roles and organization, not disbanded them entirely.

[Bosco685]

This is a mistake. He should have changed their roles and organization, not disbanded them entirely.

 

There is going to be a very easy way to tell over the next few years.

 

2016

• May 6, 2016 – Captain America: Civil War
  
• November 4, 2016 – Doctor Strange
  

2017

• May 5, 2017 – Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2
  
• July 28, 2017 – Spectacular Spider-Man (Marvel/Sony)
  
• November 3, 2017 - Thor: Ragnarok!
  

2018

• May 4, 2018 - Avengers: Infinity War, Part 1
  
• July 6, 2018 - Black Panther
  
• November 2, 2018 - Captain Marvel (Marvel)
  

2019

• May 3, 2019 - Avengers: Infinity War, Part 2
  
• July 12, 2019 - The Inhumans (Marvel)
  

 

Although with Civil War, that's already locked in when it comes to direction and content.

[Doktor]

No, Fox's "dream team" was still just 1 comic guy. The other 4 guys listed were all Hollywood guys. So yes, it was just 1 comic guy. 1 comic guy with an unknown actual level of authority. 4 writer/producers.

 

Additionally, you're assuming that the ideas Wright and others had were actually good. Based on the history of Hollywood's idea of creative license with comics in adaptations, I would argue that the reigning in of that "creativity" is necessary. The Sony leaks reveal the kind of ideas Hollywood has for these movies when unencumbered or not stopped by someone with actual knowledge of who the characters are. Trank's mandate to the cast to not read the comics for research because they didn't represent the characters in HIS movie. Literally everything about Ghost Rider (both movies). Sad Superman because dark gritty Batman works so obviously it was the tone, not the tone matching the character. All of these things were Hollywood "creativity" unleashed with little to no comic guy voices in the room that had the authority to say "wait a second, you want to do WHAT? Sure it'll look cool & be kinda funny & sure it's creative but Ghost Rider fire at people is NOT Ghost Rider!"

[Bosco685]

No, Fox's "dream team" was still just 1 comic guy. The other 4 guys listed were all Hollywood guys. So yes, it was just 1 comic guy. 1 comic guy with an unknown actual level of authority. 4 writer/producers.

 

Additionally, you're assuming that the ideas Wright and others had were actually good. Based on the history of Hollywood's idea of creative license with comics in adaptations, I would argue that the reigning in of that "creativity" is necessary. The Sony leaks reveal the kind of ideas Hollywood has for these movies when unencumbered or not stopped by someone with actual knowledge of who the characters are. Trank's mandate to the cast to not read the comics for research because they didn't represent the characters in HIS movie. Literally everything about Ghost Rider (both movies). Sad Superman because dark gritty Batman works so obviously it was the tone, not the tone matching the character. All of these things were Hollywood "creativity" unleashed with little to no comic guy voices in the room that had the authority to say "wait a second, you want to do WHAT? Sure it'll look cool & be kinda funny & sure it's creative but Ghost Rider fire at people is NOT Ghost Rider!"

 

Ike Perlmutter Thinks Female-Led Films Bomb

 

From: “IP”

To: “Lynton, Michael”

Subject: Female Movies

Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2014 05:32:50 -0400

Michael,

 

As we discussed on the phone, below are just a few examples. There are more.

 

1. Electra (Marvel) – Very bad idea and the end result was very, very bad. http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=elektra.htm

2. Catwoman (WB/DC) – Catwoman was one of the most important female character within the Batmanfranchise. This film was a disaster. http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=catwoman.htm

3. Supergirl – (DC) Supergirl was one of the most important female super hero in Superman franchise. This Movie came out in 1984 and did $14 million total domestic with opening weekend of $5.5 million. Again, another disaster.

 

Best,

Ike

 

You want your boss on top of Marvel Studios with this thought process not putting the picture together these were films that bombed because they were so poorly executed? Maybe if he had reflected on female-led or co-led action movies that did succeed because they were handled much better (e.g. Hunger Games, Maleficent, Gravity, Brave, Hanna, Tomb Raider), he'd think differently.

[Doktor]

You're conflating the 2 issues. Creative Committee had nothing to do with Ike. It was Buckley, Fine, Quesada & Bendis.

 

I fully support Feige getting independence from Ike. Ike is a good businessman that is ultra cheap & sometimes draws the wrong conclusions based on his history as a toy guy. Recognizing that those female led movies bombed not because they were female led, but because they were just bad movies is one of his major misses.

 

But the issue of removing the creative committee (that Ike wasn't part of) is something entirely different & a bad idea for all the reasons that I've put forward before.

[Bosco685]

You're conflating the 2 issues. Creative Committee had nothing to do with Ike. It was Buckley, Fine, Quesada & Bendis.

 

I fully support Feige getting independence from Ike. Ike is a good businessman that is ultra cheap & sometimes draws the wrong conclusions based on his history as a toy guy. Recognizing that those female led movies bombed not because they were female led, but because they were just bad movies is one of his major misses.

 

But the issue of removing the creative committee (that Ike wasn't part of) is something entirely different & a bad idea for all the reasons that I've put forward before.

 

...Alan Fine, who came with Perlmutter to Marvel through Toy Biz...

 

 

Ike helped Marvel stay alive, as before then it was spinning into a slow death. But there comes a point where a turnaround CEO needs to let go of the reigns. From the many stories that have come out about him, that is not in his nature.

 

This was a good move to help Marvel transition forward with fresh direction so its material doesn't start to come across as telling the same tale over time.

[cloud cloddie]

No, Fox's "dream team" was still just 1 comic guy. The other 4 guys listed were all Hollywood guys. So yes, it was just 1 comic guy. 1 comic guy with an unknown actual level of authority. 4 writer/producers.

 

Additionally, you're assuming that the ideas Wright and others had were actually good. Based on the history of Hollywood's idea of creative license with comics in adaptations, I would argue that the reigning in of that "creativity" is necessary. The Sony leaks reveal the kind of ideas Hollywood has for these movies when unencumbered or not stopped by someone with actual knowledge of who the characters are. Trank's mandate to the cast to not read the comics for research because they didn't represent the characters in HIS movie. Literally everything about Ghost Rider (both movies). Sad Superman because dark gritty Batman works so obviously it was the tone, not the tone matching the character. All of these things were Hollywood "creativity" unleashed with little to no comic guy voices in the room that had the authority to say "wait a second, you want to do WHAT? Sure it'll look cool & be kinda funny & sure it's creative but Ghost Rider fire at people is NOT Ghost Rider!"

 

Why do you keep assuming Fiege has no knowledge of these characters? Or less than the people working on the books? From everything I've read over the years, Fiege practically has encyclopedic knowledge of the Marvel universe. I don't see what him being a Hollywood guy has to do with undermining that fact.

Fantastic Four was always going to be a mess.

The Ghost Rider films were always going to be a mess with Nic Cage.

Man of Steel not working for you is totally your opinion. Box office says different, and a lot of us like it.

 

None of us truly know what exactly has been going on behind the scenes at the MCU over the last decade, and who had the most say in the direction. But I've yet to see anything that says Fiege doesn't have the best interest of making films that respect source material yet still connect with modern movie audiences. So until Marvel starts completely changing everything about the characters (Fox) or starts having bombs (Fox, Sony, Universal...) I'm going to assume him having more control is a good thing.

[fantastic_four]

You're conflating the 2 issues. Creative Committee had nothing to do with Ike. It was Buckley, Fine, Quesada & Bendis.

 

I fully support Feige getting independence from Ike. Ike is a good businessman that is ultra cheap & sometimes draws the wrong conclusions based on his history as a toy guy. Recognizing that those female led movies bombed not because they were female led, but because they were just bad movies is one of his major misses.

 

But the issue of removing the creative committee (that Ike wasn't part of) is something entirely different & a bad idea for all the reasons that I've put forward before.

 

...Alan Fine, who came with Perlmutter to Marvel through Toy Biz...

 

 

Ike helped Marvel stay alive, as before then it was spinning into a slow death. But there comes a point where a turnaround CEO needs to let go of the reigns. From the many stories that have come out about him, that is not in his nature.

 

This was a good move to help Marvel transition forward with fresh direction so its material doesn't start to come across as telling the same tale over time.

 

He points out you're conflating the two issues, and you respond by doubling down on the conflation.

[Doktor]

Point being? Feige came to Marvel Studios thru Avi Arad, who also came out of ToyBiz. Shouldn't the same "tarnish" go with him then? Alan Fine tho is a comic guy that used to be a toy guy & has been for the past like 16 or so years. Ike, however, is not involved in the creative committee. He was involved in the budget side, not the creative side. He was involved in the greenlighting projects side, not the content of the projects side.

[Broke as a Joke]

Considering Bendis and Quesada are hacks, this is a good thing right?

[Doktor]

No, Fox's "dream team" was still just 1 comic guy. The other 4 guys listed were all Hollywood guys. So yes, it was just 1 comic guy. 1 comic guy with an unknown actual level of authority. 4 writer/producers.

 

Additionally, you're assuming that the ideas Wright and others had were actually good. Based on the history of Hollywood's idea of creative license with comics in adaptations, I would argue that the reigning in of that "creativity" is necessary. The Sony leaks reveal the kind of ideas Hollywood has for these movies when unencumbered or not stopped by someone with actual knowledge of who the characters are. Trank's mandate to the cast to not read the comics for research because they didn't represent the characters in HIS movie. Literally everything about Ghost Rider (both movies). Sad Superman because dark gritty Batman works so obviously it was the tone, not the tone matching the character. All of these things were Hollywood "creativity" unleashed with little to no comic guy voices in the room that had the authority to say "wait a second, you want to do WHAT? Sure it'll look cool & be kinda funny & sure it's creative but Ghost Rider fire at people is NOT Ghost Rider!"

 

Why do you keep assuming Fiege has no knowledge of these characters? Or less than the people working on the books? From everything I've read over the years, Fiege practically has encyclopedic knowledge of the Marvel universe. I don't see what him being a Hollywood guy has to do with undermining that fact.

Fantastic Four was always going to be a mess.

The Ghost Rider films were always going to be a mess with Nic Cage.

Man of Steel not working for you is totally your opinion. Box office says different, and a lot of us like it.

 

None of us truly know what exactly has been going on behind the scenes at the MCU over the last decade, and who had the most say in the direction. But I've yet to see anything that says Fiege doesn't have the best interest of making films that respect source material yet still connect with modern movie audiences. So until Marvel starts completely changing everything about the characters (Fox) or starts having bombs (Fox, Sony, Universal...) I'm going to assume him having more control is a good thing.

 

I have never once said he doesn't have knowledge of the characters. In fact, I've said that he's probably the most knowledgable guy in Hollywood on these characters. But that's the thing. That's not necessarily saying much. Guys that have actually written the characters or been involved in the creator summits that Marvel does quarterly are absolutely going to have a better knowledge. And as good as Feige is, I'd put up Bendis, Quesada, Brevvort or a number of other guys against him in a Marvel trivia contest any day of the week & twice on sundays. 2 of those guys being on this committee.

 

(If you wanna parse my words and ignore my point, fine. But I just don't feel like taking the time to lawyer speak my point, which was obviously "knowledge of characters on a level that only comes with being directly responsible for producing content using that character such as writing, editing or drawing them")

 

I also haven't said that this was going to be an utter disaster or that Marvel is going to turn into Fox/Sony/LGF/DC overnight either. But I said that this is concerning. I think this is the wrong move. I think breaking away from Ike is the right move tho, but this one is the wrong move & leaves Marvel creatively & cohesively weaker with a greater chance of too much deviation from the source material.

 

Hollywood is generally made up of a bunch of Alan Moore types that might be creatively brilliant on their own (or conversely, a bunch of Brett Ratners as well) but generally don't play well with others. Marvel has been running a studio like a comic company for the better part of the last decade by looking for guys that also have brilliance but can play well with others. Bendis or Brubaker or Morrison or PAD or whoever. Guys that can compromise & work together. And while their individual output might not be quite on the same level as that Moore-type guy, it's not exactly self-published basement drek either. A slight loss of creativity for the creation of something that can work within a larger shared universe is a small price to pay to prevent a bunch of movies that might be slightly better but don't fit together worth a damn.

 

As for the examples tho?

 

The reason FF wasn't going to work was because they didn't have someone with a comic background to reign in a bunch of bad ideas. They didn't have anyone to reign in bad ideas at all, but they definitely deviated from the source by a wide margin & turned off everyone. Same with the 1st 2 FF movies as well.

 

Same with Ghost Rider. Nic Cage notwithstanding, those movies didn't understand the character & it didn't matter if it was Nic Cage or Johnny Depp or Brad Pitt as GR, they were still going to be bad because they deviated too much from the source.

 

And as for MoS? The extremely mixed reviews also support my opinion. Your argument of just looking at the box office would therefore make ASM 2 an even bigger success than MoS based on budget vs box office. But both had middling reviews at best.

[Doktor]

Considering Bendis and Quesada are hacks, this is a good thing right?

 

Your personal opinion of their work aside, they spearheaded Marvel's creative turn that took it from being almost out of business to being a billion dollar sale. Part of that had to do with the industry as a whole and Ike being extremely frugal, but the Ultimate line, bringing in a lot of relatively unknown Image and Wildstorm creators, massive direction changes, etc were all essentially directed by Bendis & JoeQ and totally changed the culture at Marvel. Were it not for those 2, Morrison's and Whedon's X-Men, BKV, Kirkman, Casey, Ellis, Millar, and a dozen other writers & artists wouldn't have been around to really essentially rebuild Marvel from the sewers it was in during the end of the 90's.

 

I mean... hacks or not, they turned Marvel completely 180 degrees around.

Edited September 3, 2015 by Doktor

[NP_Gresham]

I have not seen a watchable comic related movie since "Road to Perdition"

Fire everybody I say.

[Bosco685]

You're conflating the 2 issues. Creative Committee had nothing to do with Ike. It was Buckley, Fine, Quesada & Bendis.

 

I fully support Feige getting independence from Ike. Ike is a good businessman that is ultra cheap & sometimes draws the wrong conclusions based on his history as a toy guy. Recognizing that those female led movies bombed not because they were female led, but because they were just bad movies is one of his major misses.

 

But the issue of removing the creative committee (that Ike wasn't part of) is something entirely different & a bad idea for all the reasons that I've put forward before.

 

...Alan Fine, who came with Perlmutter to Marvel through Toy Biz...

 

 

Ike helped Marvel stay alive, as before then it was spinning into a slow death. But there comes a point where a turnaround CEO needs to let go of the reigns. From the many stories that have come out about him, that is not in his nature.

 

This was a good move to help Marvel transition forward with fresh direction so its material doesn't start to come across as telling the same tale over time.

 

He points out you're conflating the two issues, and you respond by doubling down on the conflation.

 

That's because he is assuming a lot. So there is no mixing two separate situations together.

 

1) Disney CEO: Let's start here. This person has a comic book franchise that has generated over $8 billion. Do you actually think he didn't consider the entire situation, including any historic rumors and realities leading to disruptions in that potential cash flow? That's a horrible assumption if you think he didn't.

 

2) Edgar Wright situation: Let's note one of the most respected directors right now that actally read the original Wright -script, and pointed out it was the best superhero material he had ever read - James Gunn. And he had NOTHING to gain in pointing that out. So the good Dokter may want to go research that fact.

 

3) Perlmutter representation on committee: I've worked at three multi-billion dollar companies, two of which were still led by the co-founders. Trust me - a billionaire is not going to take the time to sit in tactical meetings. But their expectations and influences are driven by people representing them. And with someone as controlling as Perlmutter, count on at least one person on that committee was that person. Your dreaming if you think that wasn't the case.

[cloud cloddie]

(If you wanna parse my words and ignore my point, fine. But I just don't feel like taking the time to lawyer speak my point, which was obviously "knowledge of characters on a level that only comes with being directly responsible for producing content using that character such as writing, editing or drawing them")

 

Yay! Lawyer speak!

All lawyer speak I see on these boards translates to "this is my point. I don't see yours. Let's cloud the issue!

 

If you want to argue that the creators have more knowledge, fine. Whether that is a good thing at this point is debatable. With Ultimate, Secret Wars, etc... there are so many retcons that I'm happier with the MCU direction than I am with the print direction.

 

The reason FF wasn't going to work was because they didn't have someone with a comic background to reign in a bunch of bad ideas. They didn't have anyone to reign in bad ideas at all, but they definitely deviated from the source by a wide margin & turned off everyone. Same with the 1st 2 FF movies as well

 

Same with Ghost Rider. Nic Cage notwithstanding, those movies didn't understand the character & it didn't matter if it was Nic Cage or Johnny Depp or Brad Pitt as GR, they were still going to be bad because they deviated too much from the source.

Uhh, wasn't mark millar a creative consultant on the newest FF? You seriously think there was no comic person input on this movie? Regardless of the shenanigans that were pulled throughout production, everything was way off base, with the help of people with comic backgrounds.

 

As for Ghost Rider, pointless to argue. I'm seeing Fiege as a comic person, you're not. So yes, nobody comic was super involved, deviated too far from comic, Nic Cage... it sucked.

 

And as for MoS? The extremely mixed reviews also support my opinion. Your argument of just looking at the box office would therefore make ASM 2 an even bigger success than MoS based on budget vs box office. But both had middling reviews at best.

Uhh, no.

Man of Steel reportedly had a $225 million production budget, plus another $150 million for marketing and distribution

Amazing Spider-Man 2 reportedly had a production budget of $255 million and a marketing budget of at least $180 million.

MOS - 375 mil vers 668 mil world wide take. about 1.78 x budget.

AS2 - 435 mil vers 708 mil world wide take. about 1.62 x budget.

MOS also did about 90 million more domestically, which I think at this point we all know they make a way bigger cut from domestic box office than foreign.

MOS was also a marked box office improvement over the previous Superman movie. AS2 was not.

 

 

Anyway. I think it's a good thing Fiege has more control without imput. You don't. It is what it is.

[Doktor]

You're conflating the 2 issues. Creative Committee had nothing to do with Ike. It was Buckley, Fine, Quesada & Bendis.

 

I fully support Feige getting independence from Ike. Ike is a good businessman that is ultra cheap & sometimes draws the wrong conclusions based on his history as a toy guy. Recognizing that those female led movies bombed not because they were female led, but because they were just bad movies is one of his major misses.

 

But the issue of removing the creative committee (that Ike wasn't part of) is something entirely different & a bad idea for all the reasons that I've put forward before.

 

...Alan Fine, who came with Perlmutter to Marvel through Toy Biz...

 

 

Ike helped Marvel stay alive, as before then it was spinning into a slow death. But there comes a point where a turnaround CEO needs to let go of the reigns. From the many stories that have come out about him, that is not in his nature.

 

This was a good move to help Marvel transition forward with fresh direction so its material doesn't start to come across as telling the same tale over time.

 

He points out you're conflating the two issues, and you respond by doubling down on the conflation.

 

That's because he is assuming a lot. So there is no mixing two separate situations together.

 

1) Disney CEO: Let's start here. This person has a comic book franchise that has generated over $8 billion. Do you actually think he didn't consider the entire situation, including any historic rumors and realities leading to disruptions in that potential cash flow? That's a horrible assumption if you think he didn't.

 

2) Edgar Wright situation: Let's note one of the most respected directors right now that actally read the original Wright -script, and pointed out it was the best superhero material he had ever read - James Gunn. And he had NOTHING to gain in pointing that out. So the good Dokter may want to go research that fact.

 

3) Perlmutter representation on committee: I've worked at three multi-billion dollar companies, two of which were still led by the co-founders. Trust me - a billionaire is not going to take the time to sit in tactical meetings. But their expectations and influences are driven by people representing them. And with someone as controlling as Perlmutter, count on at least one person on that committee was that person. Your dreaming if you think that wasn't the case.

 

First of all, Feige no longer reporting to Ike still has nothing to do with blowing up the creative committee. They're 2 entirely different issues. You're definitely conflating them.

 

On the issue of Wright - the issue was never whether it was good or not. The issue was "did it fit?". When Wright started on this movie, it was a Phase 1 movie that would have been part of building the foundation of the MCU. By the time it was released, it was virtually Phase 3 because he dicked around with his other stuff in the meantime.

 

The question then became "does it fit?" because when they were building the foundation, it don't have to fit because there's nothing to fit TO, it just had to be good. Everything else that others work on can fill in the space between where this good movie is and where these other good movies are. But when it's no longer building the foundation & has to fit on the 2nd floor & missed being part of the foundation now it has to be good still but it also has to fit. Wright's issues seemed to be compromising to make it fit. He had to work within the constraints established while everyone else poured the foundation, because he decided to not take part in that by waiting to get to making Ant-Man That was what led to his departure.

 

Maybe Feige was more willing to accept stuff that didn't fit & the committee kept pushing the issues of where it didn't fit & wouldn't budge, and since they worked more closely with Ike on the comic side, got him on their side to go over Feige's head. I don't know. But the only one responsible for Edgar Wright leaving Ant-Man is Edgar Wright for not doing it when he was supposed to as part of Phase 1. If he wanted to have all the creative freedom he wanted & not compromise because of what happened in 12 other movies before it, then he should have made it when he only had to worry about 1 or 2 or 3 other movies to work around instead of focusing on his other projects.

 

And as for Fine or someone representing Ike on the committee, then remove him or something, but disbanding the whole thing seems excessive & risky.

 

But you're also implying that one of them has some sort of malicious agenda or is a mindless lackey or something to make sure a girl movie doesn't get made just because Ike didn't think it would work.

 

Ike care's about making money. Lots of money. He cares about being frugal. Do we really need a nicer more expensive spread on the craft services table in production to get a better movie? Do we think he's going to blow up the whole process, which he's not even involved in anymore because he's not Feige's boss & has no say in the matter anymore?

 

Feige getting out from under Ike has absolutely zero to do with the creative committee. Sure, maybe Fine is reporting back to Ike because he still works for him in the comic division, but I'm pretty sure he can think for himself & Ike wants someone who will represent him but is actually capable in that regard.

[Doktor]

Uhh, wasn't mark millar a creative consultant on the newest FF? You seriously think there was no comic person input on this movie? Regardless of the shenanigans that were pulled throughout production, everything was way off base, with the help of people with comic backgrounds.

 

The point I've been making is that Millar was the lone creative consultant with an unknown level (or lack thereof) authority in the matter & that the other 4 guys with any authority were all Hollywood guys on his team. For all we know, he was hired to be their Feige & given the authority of the janitor. And Millar is significantly lower on my personal list (I say this as a guy who generally enjoys his work too) for guys to hold that job than everyone on Marvel's committee and a dozen other guys with Hollywood/comic mixed backgrounds like Kirkman, BKV, Loeb, etc.

 

While on the other hand, Marvel has 4 guys on their consulting side with a relatively significant amount of authority.

 

One of those situations has led to a dozen successful movies and no serious flops, the other has been (at best) 50/50 with a mostly positive DoFP and a giant flop in FF.

 

Correlation does not equal causation, but you can draw some theories out of those contrasts.

 

Uhh, no.

Man of Steel reportedly had a $225 million production budget, plus another $150 million for marketing and distribution

Amazing Spider-Man 2 reportedly had a production budget of $255 million and a marketing budget of at least $180 million.

MOS - 375 mil vers 668 mil world wide take. about 1.78 x budget.

AS2 - 435 mil vers 708 mil world wide take. about 1.62 x budget.

MOS also did about 90 million more domestically, which I think at this point we all know they make a way bigger cut from domestic box office than foreign.

MOS was also a marked box office improvement over the previous Superman movie. AS2 was not.

 

You kinda proved my point. Look at the numbers you gave. They're pretty similar numbers. You're arguing about a like 10-15% difference in total to try to say "they're totally different!". They're similar enough to be comparable. And they have about the same RT and Metacritic scores too. But one is considered a failure & the other, its supporters like to call a success just because of how horrible Superman 3, 4 & Returns were. That's like saying "at least it wasn't as bad as those, so it's good!". Better than awful does not a good movie make.

 

Look, it was middle of the road at best. Same with ASM 2. Both weren't very good but they weren't FF flops either & both have a boatload of issues with them.

 

 

Anyway. I think it's a good thing Fiege has more control without imput. You don't. It is what it is.

 

Close enough.