LawrenceBrolivier

I don't think it's that obvious at all, considering the number of corporations featuring executives who very obviously value... to a considerable extent... the way racist money spends. That I would have assumed... as did more than a few other people in here, not sure why I got singled out here... an anonymous executive was worried about somehow offending right-wingers to the point they lose money on their product, isn't very far-fetched at all. It happens all the time here. Look at the NFL, for example.

Even if your suggestion proved accurate, and I don't think it would... why would they spend the money to lose even more money on a bad movie that has no spot in their future plans and can only reflect poorly on their current situation if they didn't have to?

It's a Feige movie now... and he reportedly doesn't want this.... And even if it is a "Fox" movie, the fact Disney owns it now means it's Disney. If Feige signs off on finishing and paying to release it would make it Marvel. The "Fox" distinction is branding, and nothing more... And it wouldn't protect them from the losses this thing is guaranteed to incur, either...

Universal just shelved a completely finished movie because the president tweeted about it a bunch... yet it's somehow impossible for people to believe Disney.... who is almost singelhandedly propping the entire industry up on the back of its record profits.... might shelve an X-Men spinoff that isn't even finished and would cost them likely another 10-20 million just to dribble out on their streaming service, and more if they wanted it to go out theatrically? The director isn't available... The stars aren't available.... Nothing is scheduled.... and the people in charge of the property don't like what they have... Why SHOULD this come out? IF it does, it will be announced as Disney and Marvel Studio's first X-Men movie... and it's guaranteed to suck... and to lose money... Why would anyone want this scenario to become reality?

Before this list is posted, which will surely anger some people, please others, and otherwise be the safest list this side of an imdb ranking... I wanted to say thank you for putting in the time and effort to host the poll, compile the results, and manage the madness... And now... on with the disappointment and outrage!

I wonder if Disney is going to give Ridley the money he wants to finish his Alien prequel trilogy.... Then Disney can own two revisionist Fox trilogies by aged creators who wrecked their legacy chasing old glories!

It has to be better than the miniseries... I still remember people very loudly doubting that the IT remake could possibly live up to that ABC TV-Movie's "impact"...

It is bizarre to me that people think so poorly of their own audience they instinctively assume the nazi-friendly segment of it is THAT necessary to their financial success.... If you can't safely satirize Hitler because you're afraid you'll lose audience, maybe you don't deserve to have an audience at all.

The only time I can remember Disney caring about any box-office milestone was Endgame beating Avatar, and that's probably ONLY because it was Avatar.... otherwise they seem to be fine pulling movies from theaters no matter how close they might be to a nice number or a marketable record.

I think Hobbs and Shaw is a real thing now not just because there's big diva fights going on behind the scenes. I think that's only just part of it, really. I think producers and executives at Universal can see the decline already happening with the series, and Hobbs and Shaw was an attempt to prevent it, or at least slow it down. It lets them "reboot" the series without really "rebooting" it. The big egos clashing helps facilitate this... but I think no matter what happens, this series' best days are behind it, and now its a question of trying to find a sustainable place for it at the studio before it completely fizzles out.

Its obvious that Avengers' impact greatly extended Spider-Man's box-office this time around... but I wonder if the late legs are going to be similarly boosted by Endgame's home video run that's just starting...

This is why they will never stop doing this.

The better question is who would be doing the reshooting if the director and one of the stars are going to be shooting The Stand for CBS All Access from September to March?

It doesn't look good... Low resolutions should help mask the problems, not add to them... Seeing it on a theater screen makes it look much worse than it does from a distance in YouTube window.

This seems like a very important detail to me...

I thought M gave Silva his name? If I'm remembering it wrong I apologize but I thought that was part of the whole "mother" deal he had... that was the name his "mother" gave him...

I thought the plan was to eventually elevate Hunt to an advisory role. Like a combination of the Alec Baldwin and Jeremy Renner characters. That way you still have him around... but the action and stunts are being carried out by some new exciting young star (or stars)... And this Bond series that's re-started with Casino Royale has been pretty careful in keeping the possibilities for a new "james bond" open... Skyfall did a lot of that all by itself, by showing us Silva, who had a code-name AND a code-number that M gave him when he joined... If this movie is also going to show that the code-number can be given to a new agent, it's not much of a leap to have whoever they get next... because I'm betting Lashana Lynch won't keep the 007 title all the way to the end of this movie... take over both the number AND the name, too... it frees them up to cast a different man. It's actually some clever cake-and-eat-it-too plotting there.... they get the promotional burst of "a black woman is 007" while also, by the end, getting a brand new James Bond taking over, without needing this new Bond to be the exact same guy as Daniel Craig's.... Has anything more come out regarding Malek's character? Early rumors were he was playing Dr. No but I haven't heard anything solid since...

I've never said they could just void the contract, I've only ever said they'll pay whatever it costs to get rid of it. The bolded is exactly what I'm suggesting they're going to do... or have possibly already done, and that is being included in the write-down Iger already mentioned. I'm not mistaken about Disney being able to do what it wants... You seem to be mistaken in that I'm suggesting they can do it for free... I've never suggested that. I'm suggesting that it's very possible they've already paid for this incomplete film to just go away. You keep citing Business 101 at me but I'm wondering how you got into that class without passing Reading 101 first, LOL.

They have and they did already... they paid the money out. I'm not saying they're off the hook... I'm saying they've decided just paying out to kill the thing is probably a cost they're fine paying... I don't need to have passed Business Law 101 to see what they've been doing since they picked up Fox... if they don't want to do a thing, they don't do it, and they pay well to get rid of it... This scenario where Disney HAS to release a thing they don't want to release because someone... and nobody seems to know who that someone even is, just that it's someone... is going to make them? They paid 71 billion for this company... they're going to do exactly what they want with it. Iger said just about as much in that report himself... What entity does everyone think is going to force Disney to release this unfinished movie if they don't want to do it? Nobody seems to know, they're just guessing that such an entity exists.... Why would anyone even want this to be finished as the first Marvel/Disney X-Men entry?

I still don't understand why they'd have a contractual obligation, or who they'd owe the obligation to... They own the studio, the property, and the film... Everything about it is theirs now.... They don't have to do anything they don't want to. I can understand them needing to pay out to producers and directors in the event of the film not being released, and I can envision them deciding to pay whatever penalties their might be, and including that in the write-down Iger just announced... But I don't see Disney buying 20th Century Fox and then having their hands tied as to what they can release and when. They had no problems terminating contracts of high level executives when they took over, I don't see why they'd have a problem killing The New Mutants either... If they can wipe out entire film divisions and whatever contracts were active at those film divisions, they can decide they don't want to release this... And the movie is supposed to be a full-blown horror movie. PG-13 or not, they're not putting a horror film on Disney Plus... It would go to Hulu if it went anywhere.

Why would they face any lawsuits? They own the property, they own the studio, they own it all.... It's already a loss. I wouldn't be surprised if the 170mil they're claiming isn't just Dark Phoenix. It 's just as possible that total includes the costs incurred by canceling New Mutants, too.... Feige would now have to be in charge of finishing the movie, and I just don't see that guy deciding to introduce mutants to Disney via a horror-movie version of New Mutants. It doesn't seem to me like he would want THAT version of Cannonball or Magik to be HIS versions....

This IndieWire article about Iger's statements is a good example of how everyone reporting on this seems to regard Dark Phoenix as "the last" X-Men movie Fox did. https://www.indiewire.com/2019/08/dark-phoenix-flop-loses-disney-170-million-fox-1202163930/ This line is also interesting... Does anyone else here see Feige going to the effort to finish New Mutants for anyone, on any platform? I don't think this movie is ever coming out... It's going to be the answer to a trivia question and that's it...

Interesting comparison point to our 1999 best of poll, archived here. https://film.avclub.com/the-best-movies-of-1999-1836974523 That's the AV Club's 25 best movies of 1999 list.... it's pretty different, LOL.

Also, look at what site Tyrese had to fish up in order to be this petty... Lowyat.com? Anyone else here ever even heard of it? https://www.lowyat.net/2019/190999/hobbs-shaw-fast-furious-box-office/ But over at the industry trade magazines Variety and The Hollywood Reporter... https://variety.com/2019/film/news/box-office-fast-furious-hobbs-shaw-successful-spinoffs-1203291063/ https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/box-office-hobbs-shaw-revs-61m-us-181m-globally-1229082 https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/hobbs-shaw-can-dwayne-johnson-relaunch-new-fast-furious-era-1229122 So... Tyrese is trolling low rent scab sites for inflammatory headlines, while industry magazines are openly wondering if Dwayne Johnson has "rebooted" Fast & Furious with the spinoff....

Tyrese will be crying into his phone when Fast 9 opens to less than this did.