User avatar
By GuyX
#4854730
Wow. Maybe two of those quotes can qualify as venom. The rest you just took from my reasoned arguments against budget cutting and this franchise. Short thread? It's 62 posts and quite a few of them are from me. And the Voldemort thing is CLEARLY a joke. I don't know the guy, maybe he's a saint.
User avatar
By Dr.D
#4854731
GuyX, you really need to tone it down. We understand you aren't a fan of Rothman. Sorry for ever having brought him up. You're taking it a little far now. You don't like him, and you've made your reasons very clear. Let that be an end to it.
User avatar
By GuyX
#4854733
Alphagaia wrote:Okay, I have skimmed the first link as it's very long and indepth talk about a leaked script of XMAN3.
As this is the same guy who at first accuses Rothman to be the big problem with a movie and in a more current link says this about him:
I may have had my issues with Rothman's choices over the years, and it may have become publicly contentious at times, but he leaves the studio having made a real mark on this era of studio filmmaking. I'll be curious to see where he goes next and what he does. It's not always easy to jump to being a producer after you've run the show, and right now, there's no indication what his plans are. Whatever he does, this is the beginning of a new era for Fox, and it's going to be exciting to see how it shakes out.
Regarding the second link: it only shows us a lot of claims without links to base them on. I have no doubt some of them are true, and some are not his doing, and some were for the better of the company. But right now it seems to show a lot of butthurt people (probably because of X3 looking at the timestamps) claiming stuff without proof.

I think this sums up best what to think about the guy, quoted from the third link:
There is no denying that Fox has had great success under Rothman's leadership. He was part of the early days of Fox Searchlight, which has become one of the most reliable studio-brand independent arms, and he has nurtured some key relationships during his time at the studio, including the ongoing relationship they have with James Cameron which led to the studio releasing two of the most successful films of all time. When Rothman believed wholeheartedly in something, he could be a filmmaker's greatest friend and champion, and conversely, on those occasions he didn't fully believe in something, he could frustrate a filmmaker enormously.


In short, yes there are some (big) bumps on the road but he also did some great things. I think we can compare him with James Cameron: hard and extremely frustating to work with, but can conjure up some great things.

Also getting another company to chime on Titanic is a good move to cover risks. Fox took the greater risk as well. I don't see why you can hold that against him?
http://www.tomrothman.com/tom-talks-to- ... tanic-cnn/
Wow. This is the last word I'm going to say on the subject but talk about cherry picking quotes. Doesn't matter. You have zero idea what you are talking about with titanic. Titanic did not start out as the most expensive movie ever made. It did not have a greenlight budget of 200 million. Shooting went WAAAY over schedule and way over budget. Yes fox took most the risk but guess what? ROTHMAN did not greenlit the movie in the first place. I can count two movies Rothman made, without meddling, that turned out great. Life of Pi and Master & Commander. Yes he greenlit Avatar, yes it's insanely profitable, but personally? Not a good movie beyond the CGI. For every Avatar I can name a dozen project Rothman derailed, like Deadpool, which just had the biggest opening for any Fox movie in HISTORY. Think about that for a moment.

You have to understand something. I'm not talking about success. Fox was very successful under Rothman. I'm talking about his constant micro managing/meddling and budget cutting. I'm talking about him hiring the wrong people, making bad versions of movies that could've been great. You want to talk about his success? Cool. I'll agree with you. But beyond that the guy has a reputation. People who work in the industry know about this reputation. That's it.
User avatar
By GuyX
#4854734
Dr.D wrote:GuyX, you really need to tone it down. We understand you aren't a fan of Rothman. Sorry for ever having brought him up. You're taking it a little far now. You don't like him, and you've made your reasons very clear. Let that be an end to it.
Yeah I'm done. And I brought him up.

I guess I'm use to commenting on websites that have a little more penchant for debate. "A little far?" Puh-leeze.

But yeah I'm done. I think I made my point lol.

Back to your regular scheduled program folks
User avatar
By Alphagaia
#4854740
Indeed, let's agree to disagree. I have no worries for GB16 with Rothman counting the beans (yet) and let's leave it at that.

Regarding the trailer, I see lots of people claim it's generic. Could it be the point to show the police and army in action? Cause those you would actually call when hells is breaking lose. Except when it really is hell breaking lose, and that's where the trailer is leading up to: ghostbusters.
User avatar
By Kingpin
#4854747
GuyX wrote:Wow. Maybe two of those quotes can qualify as venom. The rest you just took from my reasoned arguments against budget cutting and this franchise.
Eh, it can be subjective.
GuyX wrote:Short thread? It's 62 posts and quite a few of them are from me.
Yep, and by GBFans standards, it is one of the "short" ones. :)
GuyX wrote:Wow. This is the last word I'm going to say on the subject but talk about cherry picking quotes. Doesn't matter. You have zero idea what you are talking about with titanic. Titanic did not start out as the most expensive movie ever made. It did not have a greenlight budget of 200 million. Shooting went WAAAY over schedule and way over budget. Yes fox took most the risk but guess what? ROTHMAN did not greenlit the movie in the first place.
Hey, hey, easy now. He isn't being deliberately selective with the quotes he's got to justify what he said about Rothman or Titanic. Titanic's budget may've ballooned during production, but at the time I think I also had the impression it was one of the most expensive movies of its day.
GuyX wrote:I guess I'm use to commenting on websites that have a little more penchant for debate. "A little far?" Puh-leeze.
I guess we try to "discuss" things here, rather than "debate", but even two places that discuss things to the same extent will naturally maintain different standards. Believe it or not, but there've been tougher crowd reactions to some things that've been posted here in recent memory.

But point noted, we won't know what Rothman's influence on the franchise will be until a couple of years are under the belt.

As for the trailer, I've no issue with the shots of the Police and the army/national guard, it's no more involved or "dramatic/action" than those similar scenes in the 1984 film, and on the flipside of that, with some criticising the film for copying so much, would a greater sense of action between the scenes of exposition and plot development not help to set this film a bit more aside from it's progenitor?
I'm quite eager to see the full trailer, suffice to say.
User avatar
By Kingpin
#4854751
Yeah, unfortunately that other topic has mutated beyond it's original purpose, but unfortunately it was probably one of those subject matters that had a limited lifespan before it went off tangent.

Or if you bought the access pack you get them inst[…]

Now that we at SAGB have actually got through our […]

Has anyone successfully transferred the pedal el[…]

I have not heard of this. On the Matty PKE, if the[…]